What's strange to me is the visceral reaction a lot of people get to movies they love being criticized. I have the exact opposite reaction, where I get irrational about people praising a movie I hate. I can listen to hours off BttF getting torn to shreds and it doesn't faze me, but I have to close the forums whenever Texiken brings up Blank Has Fallen, lest I lose my shit. I have an overpowering need to explain why they are asstastic that I think comes from the same place as those sensitive to criticism.
To be fair, it could be worse - Texiken could have been an Adam Sandler or Uwe Boll fan.
+2
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
The Michael Bay Transformers movies are legit entertaining and well-shot action movies
that suffer from absolutely hideous attempts at comic relief.
The Michael Bay Transformers movies are legit entertaining and well-shot action movies
that suffer from absolutely hideous attempts at comic relief.
Michael Bay certainly spends a lot of time and effort making his female actresses into having sexy shots. Which is worrying with the new movie, the female lead is 15 in real life.
The Michael Bay Transformers movies are legit entertaining and well-shot action movies
that suffer from absolutely hideous attempts at comic relief.
Michael Bay certainly spends a lot of time and effort making his female actresses into having sexy shots. Which is worrying with the new movie, the female lead is 15 in real life.
Bay had a character in the 4th film literally carry around a tiny card that said "sure, I'm having sex with someone under the age of consent but due to a specific statute I'm technically not a rapist so it's okay."
The Michael Bay Transformers movies are legit entertaining and well-shot action movies
that suffer from absolutely hideous attempts at comic relief.
Michael Bay certainly spends a lot of time and effort making his female actresses into having sexy shots. Which is worrying with the new movie, the female lead is 15 in real life.
Bay had a character in the 4th film literally carry around a tiny card that said "sure, I'm having sex with someone under the age of consent but due to a specific statute I'm technically not a rapist so it's okay."
That's why this may make that look less stupid, at least the actress wasn't under age there.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
The Michael Bay Transformers movies are legit entertaining and well-shot action movies
that suffer from absolutely hideous attempts at comic relief.
Michael Bay certainly spends a lot of time and effort making his female actresses into having sexy shots. Which is worrying with the new movie, the female lead is 15 in real life.
Bay had a character in the 4th film literally carry around a tiny card that said "sure, I'm having sex with someone under the age of consent but due to a specific statute I'm technically not a rapist so it's okay."
I still don't understand why the writers, Bay and everyone involved with the project thought that statute and situation was a plot point worth exploring in a Transformers movie.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The Michael Bay Transformers movies are legit entertaining and well-shot action movies
that suffer from absolutely hideous attempts at comic relief.
Michael Bay certainly spends a lot of time and effort making his female actresses into having sexy shots. Which is worrying with the new movie, the female lead is 15 in real life.
Bay had a character in the 4th film literally carry around a tiny card that said "sure, I'm having sex with someone under the age of consent but due to a specific statute I'm technically not a rapist so it's okay."
I still don't understand why the writers, Bay and everyone involved with the project thought that statute and situation was a plot point worth exploring in a Transformers movie.
The writers were only following orders, this is all on Michael Bay. Nothing gets in the film without his say so. He's got tremendous pull behind the scenes.
That said, your statement could apply to numerous plot threads and sub-plots in those movies.
There's a popular narrative that analyzing or criticizing something is done out of spite and malice.
Now, I can't really say that never happens because, well, it certainly does, but it's an uncharitable interpretation to assume that all criticism comes from a place of negativity.
EDIT: I can only speak anecdotally, but for most of the people I know, the big reason they analyze or critique is to understand. Seeing how all the moving parts work, in and out of context, gives them an appreciation of the work as a whole.
The thing that I see most of all is that the criticism puts way more effort and thought into what is going on in the movie than anybody actually involved in the movie. You can say that, yeah having a white guy invent rock and roll in BttF is all kinds of bad, but I guarantee you that not a single person in the production saw it as anything more than a neat time travel gimmick. And you can keep going down that rabbit hole. But in the end, it's just people trapped in the time they are in. In 1985, you could be the most progressive person in Hollywood and you'd still be a failure on that end by todays' standards.
There's a popular narrative that analyzing or criticizing something is done out of spite and malice.
Now, I can't really say that never happens because, well, it certainly does, but it's an uncharitable interpretation to assume that all criticism comes from a place of negativity.
EDIT: I can only speak anecdotally, but for most of the people I know, the big reason they analyze or critique is to understand. Seeing how all the moving parts work, in and out of context, gives them an appreciation of the work as a whole.
The thing that I see most of all is that the criticism puts way more effort and thought into what is going on in the movie than anybody actually involved in the movie. You can say that, yeah having a white guy invent rock and roll in BttF is all kinds of bad, but I guarantee you that not a single person in the production saw it as anything more than a neat time travel gimmick. And you can keep going down that rabbit hole. But in the end, it's just people trapped in the time they are in. In 1985, you could be the most progressive person in Hollywood and you'd still be a failure on that end by todays' standards.
I don't think there's anything wrong with putting more thought into a work of art than its creator did. A lot of analysis is interested in uncovering the sorts of values, worldviews, aesthetics and politics that are expressed unconsciously.
There's a popular narrative that analyzing or criticizing something is done out of spite and malice.
Now, I can't really say that never happens because, well, it certainly does, but it's an uncharitable interpretation to assume that all criticism comes from a place of negativity.
EDIT: I can only speak anecdotally, but for most of the people I know, the big reason they analyze or critique is to understand. Seeing how all the moving parts work, in and out of context, gives them an appreciation of the work as a whole.
The thing that I see most of all is that the criticism puts way more effort and thought into what is going on in the movie than anybody actually involved in the movie. You can say that, yeah having a white guy invent rock and roll in BttF is all kinds of bad, but I guarantee you that not a single person in the production saw it as anything more than a neat time travel gimmick. And you can keep going down that rabbit hole. But in the end, it's just people trapped in the time they are in. In 1985, you could be the most progressive person in Hollywood and you'd still be a failure on that end by todays' standards.
I don't think there's anything wrong with putting more thought into a work of art than its creator did. A lot of analysis is interested in uncovering the sorts of values, worldviews, aesthetics and politics that are expressed unconsciously.
I agree
But I think there's something strangely masochistic in the exercise of reaching back thirty-some-odd years and demonizing an otherwise harmless or for-the-time progressive work based on a problematic element that you'd have to really, really reaching for in the first place.
Like, Revenge of the Nerds was already a greasy power fantasy that featured gross stereotypes and caricatures. That the film justified a protagonist taking sexual advantage of a woman via subterfuge is neither surprising within the greasy-as-fuck context of the story, nor is it out of line with how basically icky the characters and writing are. That movie starts on the premise, not of "it's ok to be bookish and different," but more "it's super cool to be a willfully gross, offputting weirdo spectacle."
The Cousin Chuck scene in BttF would've worked had Marty McFly been played by a young Denzel Washington, with zero script changes. The scene makes zero statements, and is predicated on the already fantastical concept of time travel. Nobody came away from that movie under the impression that a wholly fictional white guy travelled back in time and composer Johnny B. Goode at a high school prom.
+7
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
There's a popular narrative that analyzing or criticizing something is done out of spite and malice.
Now, I can't really say that never happens because, well, it certainly does, but it's an uncharitable interpretation to assume that all criticism comes from a place of negativity.
EDIT: I can only speak anecdotally, but for most of the people I know, the big reason they analyze or critique is to understand. Seeing how all the moving parts work, in and out of context, gives them an appreciation of the work as a whole.
But you can only do so with context. The idea of going out of context just isn't valid and leads to things exactly like "white kid steals black music," which just comes across as looking to run roughshod over a creator's vision/intent/whatever thirty years after the fact and Scrotie McBoogerballing the whole thing. As was mentioned on a previous page, the joke was that Marty created a loop in a movie about loops, and did so unknowingly. Unless you can find something written or said by someone on the production crew that screwing over Chuck Berry was the intention, that critique becomes unsustainable (or would be in a world not run by 140 characters of snark). Otherwise you can reduce anything to be that way and that's just an impossible burden for others to bear. Demolition Man would boil down to "white cop kills black man"
Analyzing is fun. And for me, personally, I think it's very cool when people try and pick apart something I like because sometimes further defense of it can result in a new appreciation for it. Atlas In Chains just posted that my brilliant posts about Blank Has Fallen are so powerful he has to literally, literally close the browser because he just cannot even because they are that good. But recognizing your own baggage being brought to the table is also important when you start going critical. I know I cannot objectively work with some of the Marvel stuff because of how shit Captain America is, and that Paddington can murder the Browns in their sleep in the next movie and I'll think it's fine because the marmalade must flow.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The terse succinctness of it has an appeal, but I'll always take the Ebert-style full-length teardown of a film over a one word/sentence dismissal.
Normally I would very much agree.
With that movie?
Nope.
I'm not sure I enjoyed Martyrs, per se, but I respected its ambitious, original take on "torture porn" horror. I like that it's out there in the world, upsetting those who stumble upon it.
I don't have any problem with actually analyzing the content of a movie and critiquing it on cultural grounds. I do that all the time, and I enjoy reading that kind of analysis.
I do have a problem when people criticize a movie as "problematic" and that's it. That's not analysis or critical thinking!
Especially when that leaves us with conversations like, "Some of those 80s movies are really Problematic, like Back to the Future or Revenge of the Nerds."
Those two movies - and whatever problems each of them may or may not have - are not at all alike! It doesn't help anyone understand those movies or their issues.
Kana on
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.
+4
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
Martyrs would have been a much better movie if the second half had turned into a court room procedural instead of, well, that.
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
I never heard of this Martyrs and I'm looking it up....
are you all talking about the 2008 one or the 2015 one?
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
2008? Apparently the 2015 one is an American remake of that film, which I didn't know until just now.
There's a popular narrative that analyzing or criticizing something is done out of spite and malice.
Now, I can't really say that never happens because, well, it certainly does, but it's an uncharitable interpretation to assume that all criticism comes from a place of negativity.
EDIT: I can only speak anecdotally, but for most of the people I know, the big reason they analyze or critique is to understand. Seeing how all the moving parts work, in and out of context, gives them an appreciation of the work as a whole.
The thing that I see most of all is that the criticism puts way more effort and thought into what is going on in the movie than anybody actually involved in the movie. You can say that, yeah having a white guy invent rock and roll in BttF is all kinds of bad, but I guarantee you that not a single person in the production saw it as anything more than a neat time travel gimmick. And you can keep going down that rabbit hole. But in the end, it's just people trapped in the time they are in. In 1985, you could be the most progressive person in Hollywood and you'd still be a failure on that end by todays' standards.
Marty didnt invent Rock and Roll in BttF anymore than a student who plagiarized research, is a researcher.
Marty becomes the courier of the sound of Rock and Roll, from Future Chuck Barry to Past Chuck Barry, never taking ownership of it.
The terse succinctness of it has an appeal, but I'll always take the Ebert-style full-length teardown of a film over a one word/sentence dismissal.
Normally I would very much agree.
With that movie?
Nope.
I'm not sure I enjoyed Martyrs, per se, but I respected its ambitious, original take on "torture porn" horror. I like that it's out there in the world, upsetting those who stumble upon it.
Yeah, I can respect that it was probably that. It was just too much for me; of course, that's on me, not the movie.
Actually, "nope!" might be my one-word review of it
Well I watched a better movie today: Three from Johnnie To.
I've seen a bunch of To's films and this isn't anything spectacular, but it's a brief bit of fun. Set entirely in a (suspiciously spacious) hospital wing, it's about a criminal who's been shot in the head, and uses a loophole in order to buy time before going into surgery so his buddies can break him out of police custody.
It has a surprising amount of characters (police, hospital workers, other patients, would-be crooks), none of whom are much more than simple, moralistic forces, but they're performed with charisma and indulgence. To's fluid camera work and ability to craft tension make the most of the cat-and-mouse first couple acts. Like a number of his films, it all erupts in an over-the-top slo-mo spectacle, this one pretty goofy, not just in the amount of people getting shot and flung about, but in some weird shooting decisions (speeding up footage, egregious SFX, actors appearing to perform in slow mo---what?).
Hey, I think Fate of the Furious might technically pass the bechdel test
I thought most of them did?
I'm not 100% sure they all do, but i think a few of them do, at least the more modern ones released in the teens.
Also I find it awesome that they like purposefully make that happen.
Like they are really dumb films, like the techno babble from this one was like bullshit white noise.
But I'm not going here for smart cinema. I'm here to watch car races, car chases (very different), fight scenes, one liners, and explosions. (The computers as magic? Totally acceptable).
Yet every film goes about its damndest to be diverse, pass the bechdel test, and be pretty fuckin progressive overall. Its just a genre where that doesn't often happen.
I don't have any problem with actually analyzing the content of a movie and critiquing it on cultural grounds. I do that all the time, and I enjoy reading that kind of analysis.
I do have a problem when people criticize a movie as "problematic" and that's it. That's not analysis or critical thinking!
Especially when that leaves us with conversations like, "Some of those 80s movies are really Problematic, like Back to the Future or Revenge of the Nerds."
Those two movies - and whatever problems each of them may or may not have - are not at all alike! It doesn't help anyone understand those movies or their issues.
It's been a while since I've seen BTTF but didn't that end with Biff being their house servant? That sounds like a really bad idea.
2F2F does because it has a scene with the lone female driver talking with her squad about a car.
I don't remember any two women talking to each other in F8 of the Furious.
Letty and Megan, during the final chase.
Is why I give technical pass. Its literally the shortest of things, but seemingly quite purposefully done.
0
Options
RhalloTonnyOf the BrownlandsRegistered Userregular
Now I haven't seen Back to the Future in quite some time (something that this recent discussion has me wanting to rectify) and if that continued, I most likely would have never thought about the Chuck Berry scene in terms of white ownership of black art.
However, after that being pointed out, you better believe I'm considering that on my next watch.
I have no doubt it was completely unintentional. I have no doubt it was intended as a simple time travel loop gag. I thoroughly enjoy the idea of a future-man getting up in front of a group of awkward teens who are unknowingly about to live through one of the most socially disruptive times in modern American history and giving them a taste of art to come, the sounds of the future. Then(!) going a bit too far and losing them (I absolutely adore that you can read that as generational change regarding boomers and their children, that each generation only advances the ball so far before closing off and becoming resistant to change)!
but with all that in mind, and especially post-election, I can see how it really ain't a good look.
Art is constantly being recontextualized by both our own autobiographical experiences and the politics of the time. I'm willing to acknowledge that not every movie has to be politically future-proof for a century+, but the other side of that acknowledgement is that I'd say we have an obligation to not deify classics or say that beloved works are immune to (even possibly over the top nit-picking levels of) criticism*. No work can be truly flawless forever, but that's okay!
Say I end up watching it and find that @Atomika's and @Astaereth's interpretation of that scene really is just happenstance and at worst it's an unfortunate coincidence that's there if you want to see it that way. If that's the case...what's the worst-case scenario of putting forth that idea? That we reconsider a work and open our minds to a different interpretation? That there's a discussion about how innocuous intentions can still result in problematic content and we end up having a discussion that tests a theory and we all get some practice at reading works of art and arguing the merits of said theory?
*I will admit that it kinda sucks to hear a talented critic turn their laser-focused criticism skills on your favorite movie, but I think that's just the cost of doing business in a world where people have opinions.
BTTF is ripe for a parody scene where you hear Chuck Berry on the other end of the line after the musical bit ends screaming "That motherfucker stole my song!" and just go from there.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
2F2F does because it has a scene with the lone female driver talking with her squad about a car.
I don't remember any two women talking to each other in F8 of the Furious.
I don't think so either.
Cipher runs an all male crew, and never talks to the prisoner. She never leaves the plane apart from the opening scene.
Letty never talks to ... anyone... really, apart from Dom.
Ramsey only interacts with other men.
Helen Mirren only talks to Dom and her kids.
The Beastcast spoilercast commented on this, but this series has been losing women in active roles since 5 at least.
2F2F does because it has a scene with the lone female driver talking with her squad about a car.
I don't remember any two women talking to each other in F8 of the Furious.
I don't think so either.
Cipher runs an all male crew, and never talks to the prisoner. She never leaves the plane apart from the opening scene.
Letty never talks to ... anyone... really, apart from Dom.
Ramsey only interacts with other men.
Helen Mirren only talks to Dom and her kids.
The Beastcast spoilercast commented on this, but this series has been losing women in active roles since 5 at least.
Fate of the Furious spoiler
There's a single scene where Letty argues with Ramsey over Tortetto going rogue in Act 1.
2F2F does because it has a scene with the lone female driver talking with her squad about a car.
I don't remember any two women talking to each other in F8 of the Furious.
I don't think so either.
Cipher runs an all male crew, and never talks to the prisoner. She never leaves the plane apart from the opening scene.
Letty never talks to ... anyone... really, apart from Dom.
Ramsey only interacts with other men.
Helen Mirren only talks to Dom and her kids.
The Beastcast spoilercast commented on this, but this series has been losing women in active roles since 5 at least.
Sleep said there was a brief conversation between Ramsey and Letty at the end chase, so that's something?
I totally agree with the lack of women in active roles idea. They've killed Gisele and Elena, Mia is off-limits because Walker is dead which leaves Ramsey, Letty, and if you stretch it, Monica Fuentes. Hopefully Letty will step up in the next movie or two, but even then, she's already the one female that still regularly does any kind of action. Ramsey just kind of sits behind a computer as is a cyber-wizard, or she just reacts to everything in a scared manner. Eva Mendes probably isn't interested in coming back either (since she hasn't), so... that's kind of it.
2F2F does because it has a scene with the lone female driver talking with her squad about a car.
I don't remember any two women talking to each other in F8 of the Furious.
I don't think so either.
Cipher runs an all male crew, and never talks to the prisoner. She never leaves the plane apart from the opening scene.
Letty never talks to ... anyone... really, apart from Dom.
Ramsey only interacts with other men.
Helen Mirren only talks to Dom and her kids.
The Beastcast spoilercast commented on this, but this series has been losing women in active roles since 5 at least.
Sleep said there was a brief conversation between Ramsey and Letty at the end chase, so that's something?
I totally agree with the lack of women in active roles idea. They've killed Gisele and Elena, Mia is off-limits because Walker is dead which leaves Ramsey, Letty, and if you stretch it, Monica Fuentes. Hopefully Letty will step up in the next movie or two, but even then, she's already the one female that still regularly does any kind of action. Ramsey just kind of sits behind a computer as is a cyber-wizard, or she just reacts to everything in a scared manner. Eva Mendes probably isn't interested in coming back either (since she hasn't), so... that's kind of it.
2F2F does because it has a scene with the lone female driver talking with her squad about a car.
I don't remember any two women talking to each other in F8 of the Furious.
I don't think so either.
Cipher runs an all male crew, and never talks to the prisoner. She never leaves the plane apart from the opening scene.
Letty never talks to ... anyone... really, apart from Dom.
Ramsey only interacts with other men.
Helen Mirren only talks to Dom and her kids.
The Beastcast spoilercast commented on this, but this series has been losing women in active roles since 5 at least.
Sleep said there was a brief conversation between Ramsey and Letty at the end chase, so that's something?
I totally agree with the lack of women in active roles idea. They've killed Gisele and Elena, Mia is off-limits because Walker is dead which leaves Ramsey, Letty, and if you stretch it, Monica Fuentes. Hopefully Letty will step up in the next movie or two, but even then, she's already the one female that still regularly does any kind of action. Ramsey just kind of sits behind a computer as is a cyber-wizard, or she just reacts to everything in a scared manner. Eva Mendes probably isn't interested in coming back either (since she hasn't), so... that's kind of it.
Yeah, they've kinda limited themselves.
Eva Mendes coming back would be a deep callback.
Overall it seems like they need some new blood.
Especially female new blood, and give the female members more to do. Ramsey was perfect for this, yet her development was severely limited compared to the last movie.
+1
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Ramsey is dull as dirt and was always just a lesser Ludacris. I'd rather have the kiwi from Tokyo drift back and get rid of Scott Eastwood.
Brewster won't be coming back because of Walkers death.
There's talk of doing a spin off with Scorpion King and Transporter (which is actually a super smart move) and there you could include some special forces ladies. Then again they might use that as a chance to put Ronda Rousey back in the franchise.
Who am I kidding, with how big the franchise is now in China they'll put in some PRC actress.
Ramsey is dull as dirt and was always just a lesser Ludacris. I'd rather have the kiwi from Tokyo drift back and get rid of Scott Eastwood.
Brewster won't be coming back because of Walkers death.
Ramsey's awesome, yeah Eastwood needs to leave ASAP, and Brewster was barely there as an actress.
There's talk of doing a spin off with Scorpion King and Transporter (which is actually a super smart move) and there you could include some special forces ladies. Then again they might use that as a chance to put Ronda Rousey back in the franchise.
Oh God no, keep Rousey away.
Who am I kidding, with how big the franchise is now in China they'll put in some PRC actress.
Posts
To be fair, it could be worse - Texiken could have been an Adam Sandler or Uwe Boll fan.
Michael Bay certainly spends a lot of time and effort making his female actresses into having sexy shots. Which is worrying with the new movie, the female lead is 15 in real life.
Bay had a character in the 4th film literally carry around a tiny card that said "sure, I'm having sex with someone under the age of consent but due to a specific statute I'm technically not a rapist so it's okay."
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
That's why this may make that look less stupid, at least the actress wasn't under age there.
I still don't understand why the writers, Bay and everyone involved with the project thought that statute and situation was a plot point worth exploring in a Transformers movie.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The writers were only following orders, this is all on Michael Bay. Nothing gets in the film without his say so. He's got tremendous pull behind the scenes.
That said, your statement could apply to numerous plot threads and sub-plots in those movies.
The terse succinctness of it has an appeal, but I'll always take the Ebert-style full-length teardown of a film over a one word/sentence dismissal.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The thing that I see most of all is that the criticism puts way more effort and thought into what is going on in the movie than anybody actually involved in the movie. You can say that, yeah having a white guy invent rock and roll in BttF is all kinds of bad, but I guarantee you that not a single person in the production saw it as anything more than a neat time travel gimmick. And you can keep going down that rabbit hole. But in the end, it's just people trapped in the time they are in. In 1985, you could be the most progressive person in Hollywood and you'd still be a failure on that end by todays' standards.
I don't think there's anything wrong with putting more thought into a work of art than its creator did. A lot of analysis is interested in uncovering the sorts of values, worldviews, aesthetics and politics that are expressed unconsciously.
Normally I would very much agree.
With that movie?
Nope.
Steam | XBL
I agree
But I think there's something strangely masochistic in the exercise of reaching back thirty-some-odd years and demonizing an otherwise harmless or for-the-time progressive work based on a problematic element that you'd have to really, really reaching for in the first place.
Like, Revenge of the Nerds was already a greasy power fantasy that featured gross stereotypes and caricatures. That the film justified a protagonist taking sexual advantage of a woman via subterfuge is neither surprising within the greasy-as-fuck context of the story, nor is it out of line with how basically icky the characters and writing are. That movie starts on the premise, not of "it's ok to be bookish and different," but more "it's super cool to be a willfully gross, offputting weirdo spectacle."
The Cousin Chuck scene in BttF would've worked had Marty McFly been played by a young Denzel Washington, with zero script changes. The scene makes zero statements, and is predicated on the already fantastical concept of time travel. Nobody came away from that movie under the impression that a wholly fictional white guy travelled back in time and composer Johnny B. Goode at a high school prom.
But you can only do so with context. The idea of going out of context just isn't valid and leads to things exactly like "white kid steals black music," which just comes across as looking to run roughshod over a creator's vision/intent/whatever thirty years after the fact and Scrotie McBoogerballing the whole thing. As was mentioned on a previous page, the joke was that Marty created a loop in a movie about loops, and did so unknowingly. Unless you can find something written or said by someone on the production crew that screwing over Chuck Berry was the intention, that critique becomes unsustainable (or would be in a world not run by 140 characters of snark). Otherwise you can reduce anything to be that way and that's just an impossible burden for others to bear. Demolition Man would boil down to "white cop kills black man"
Analyzing is fun. And for me, personally, I think it's very cool when people try and pick apart something I like because sometimes further defense of it can result in a new appreciation for it. Atlas In Chains just posted that my brilliant posts about Blank Has Fallen are so powerful he has to literally, literally close the browser because he just cannot even because they are that good. But recognizing your own baggage being brought to the table is also important when you start going critical. I know I cannot objectively work with some of the Marvel stuff because of how shit Captain America is, and that Paddington can murder the Browns in their sleep in the next movie and I'll think it's fine because the marmalade must flow.
I'm not sure I enjoyed Martyrs, per se, but I respected its ambitious, original take on "torture porn" horror. I like that it's out there in the world, upsetting those who stumble upon it.
I do have a problem when people criticize a movie as "problematic" and that's it. That's not analysis or critical thinking!
Especially when that leaves us with conversations like, "Some of those 80s movies are really Problematic, like Back to the Future or Revenge of the Nerds."
Those two movies - and whatever problems each of them may or may not have - are not at all alike! It doesn't help anyone understand those movies or their issues.
are you all talking about the 2008 one or the 2015 one?
Marty didnt invent Rock and Roll in BttF anymore than a student who plagiarized research, is a researcher.
Marty becomes the courier of the sound of Rock and Roll, from Future Chuck Barry to Past Chuck Barry, never taking ownership of it.
MWO: Adamski
Yeah, I can respect that it was probably that. It was just too much for me; of course, that's on me, not the movie.
Actually, "nope!" might be my one-word review of it
Steam | XBL
Or maybe it's the movie!
Alright, yeah, maybe it is
Steam | XBL
I've seen a bunch of To's films and this isn't anything spectacular, but it's a brief bit of fun. Set entirely in a (suspiciously spacious) hospital wing, it's about a criminal who's been shot in the head, and uses a loophole in order to buy time before going into surgery so his buddies can break him out of police custody.
It has a surprising amount of characters (police, hospital workers, other patients, would-be crooks), none of whom are much more than simple, moralistic forces, but they're performed with charisma and indulgence. To's fluid camera work and ability to craft tension make the most of the cat-and-mouse first couple acts. Like a number of his films, it all erupts in an over-the-top slo-mo spectacle, this one pretty goofy, not just in the amount of people getting shot and flung about, but in some weird shooting decisions (speeding up footage, egregious SFX, actors appearing to perform in slow mo---what?).
Not one of his best, but it sure is spirited.
I'm not 100% sure they all do, but i think a few of them do, at least the more modern ones released in the teens.
Also I find it awesome that they like purposefully make that happen.
Like they are really dumb films, like the techno babble from this one was like bullshit white noise.
But I'm not going here for smart cinema. I'm here to watch car races, car chases (very different), fight scenes, one liners, and explosions. (The computers as magic? Totally acceptable).
Yet every film goes about its damndest to be diverse, pass the bechdel test, and be pretty fuckin progressive overall. Its just a genre where that doesn't often happen.
I don't remember any two women talking to each other in F8 of the Furious.
It's been a while since I've seen BTTF but didn't that end with Biff being their house servant? That sounds like a really bad idea.
Letty and Megan, during the final chase.
Is why I give technical pass. Its literally the shortest of things, but seemingly quite purposefully done.
However, after that being pointed out, you better believe I'm considering that on my next watch.
I have no doubt it was completely unintentional. I have no doubt it was intended as a simple time travel loop gag. I thoroughly enjoy the idea of a future-man getting up in front of a group of awkward teens who are unknowingly about to live through one of the most socially disruptive times in modern American history and giving them a taste of art to come, the sounds of the future. Then(!) going a bit too far and losing them (I absolutely adore that you can read that as generational change regarding boomers and their children, that each generation only advances the ball so far before closing off and becoming resistant to change)!
but with all that in mind, and especially post-election, I can see how it really ain't a good look.
Art is constantly being recontextualized by both our own autobiographical experiences and the politics of the time. I'm willing to acknowledge that not every movie has to be politically future-proof for a century+, but the other side of that acknowledgement is that I'd say we have an obligation to not deify classics or say that beloved works are immune to (even possibly over the top nit-picking levels of) criticism*. No work can be truly flawless forever, but that's okay!
Say I end up watching it and find that @Atomika's and @Astaereth's interpretation of that scene really is just happenstance and at worst it's an unfortunate coincidence that's there if you want to see it that way. If that's the case...what's the worst-case scenario of putting forth that idea? That we reconsider a work and open our minds to a different interpretation? That there's a discussion about how innocuous intentions can still result in problematic content and we end up having a discussion that tests a theory and we all get some practice at reading works of art and arguing the merits of said theory?
*I will admit that it kinda sucks to hear a talented critic turn their laser-focused criticism skills on your favorite movie, but I think that's just the cost of doing business in a world where people have opinions.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I don't think so either.
Letty never talks to ... anyone... really, apart from Dom.
Ramsey only interacts with other men.
Helen Mirren only talks to Dom and her kids.
The Beastcast spoilercast commented on this, but this series has been losing women in active roles since 5 at least.
Fate of the Furious spoiler
Yeah, they've kinda limited themselves.
Eva Mendes coming back would be a deep callback.
Overall it seems like they need some new blood.
Especially female new blood, and give the female members more to do. Ramsey was perfect for this, yet her development was severely limited compared to the last movie.
Brewster won't be coming back because of Walkers death.
There's talk of doing a spin off with Scorpion King and Transporter (which is actually a super smart move) and there you could include some special forces ladies. Then again they might use that as a chance to put Ronda Rousey back in the franchise.
Who am I kidding, with how big the franchise is now in China they'll put in some PRC actress.
Ramsey's awesome, yeah Eastwood needs to leave ASAP, and Brewster was barely there as an actress.
Oh God no, keep Rousey away.
Sign me up for Jing Tian joining Dom's crew!