You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Snowflake
Mine were Jaws, Tremors and Labyrinth.
With Jaws 2 and Robocop 2 as close seconds. I had a thing for monsters.
Since it came up, honorable mentions goes to miss Foster's little song number in Bugsy Malone – rewind repeat, and Candleshoe. I probably had another thing as well 
Discussion with some insider info: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1010868 … med/page/1
Looks like a bit of a mess for everyone involved. Can't imagine stuff like this won't pop up quite regularly, seems inevitable.
It's the million dollars. Kickstarter runs on goodwill and she was shown a lot of goodwill, people would like to see some of that returned. This has nothing to do with Kickstarter itself and everything to do with human interaction. It's a question of decency. Was is wrong? Legally, no. Socially, possibly, someone certainly thought so and then the internet happened.
I think some of it can be attributed to the tone and wording on her call out for musicians. Also I wouldn't be surprised if this had been a none-issue had it been a reward, as you suggest, and framed as a privilege instead of a plea.
Love this trend, it removes the middleman and enables people that actually make shit happen to get something worthwhile done.
Unforgiven didn't do much for me, but this could warrant a rewatch-along when it's released. I haven't seen much japanese film outside of Kurosawa, they don't seem to have a movie making presence in the rest of the world besides their celebrated animation and ridiculed kaiju movies. I've heard somewhere that their movies generally aren't very good, but this certainly looks promising.
A few topics that possibly could spark some interesting discussion:
Industry philosophy milestones
Meaning conceptual barriers and breakthroughs, not monetary or material, though they probably are the underlying reasons for philosophies to change. Basicly methods of approach, old mainstays and breaking ground with new ones, and the perception of them. Examples: Shooting several movies in a franchise simultanously (LOTR/Hobbit, Matrix, Pirates), quick reboots if the first go was unsuccessful (The Hulk, Superman, Spiderman), the acceptance of movies being three hours long and with no real ending, being the first act of a nine hour story (LOTR/Hobbit). Personally I think all the above are to an extent good things, I think they widen the creative space, your milage may vary. What are some of the past and current ones and do you think they are good or bad, what do you see coming and welcome or dread, and what do you wish to see and what do you not?
Industry buzzwords
There are a lot of phrases getting bandied about and taken as truths on which critical decisions are made, concepts like: Bankable star, happy ending, four quadrant, tentpole, high concept and such. Basicly a concept packed into a small phrase used to sell an argument of success or failure as a "sure thing" in questions of monetary risk. What are their history, rise and fall of such concepts, do they have any merit, and what are the new buzz going around now?
The movieness of movies
What's so movie about movies? What kinds of stories are best served by the movie format and what stories are not? What about the medium makes that so? Can't all stories be told in movie format or are there actual hard barriers for some kinds of stories that prevent them from ever being successful as a movie? What are the inherent and unique traits, if any, of movie storytelling as opposed to books, plays, audiodramas and games?
Movie making golden means
Are there any constants? I'm talking generally, as there are always exceptions. I mean, are old movies just slow because the medium was in a primitive state with an abundance of shoeleather, or are there examples of old movies with perfect edits still today? Is the notion that the MTV generation can cope with the fast cutting, and feel it's entirely natural, a false one? Are some cuts just too fast, no matter how many music videos you've watched? If we disregard the effects and production values and concentrate on the movie making itself, the pace and staging, can you think of any examples of movies that are evergreen, or at least come very close? I'll put forward Jaws, Seven, Die Hard and Alien, to name only a few, as potential and certainly biased candidates for discussion. This would also go for dialogue, visual language and such, not just pacing, though that will certainly pull us into a conversation about style. But I'll rephrase the question then: are there some things that never go out of style, and some that are forever antiquated? I mean, is there room for Mickey Mousing today, outside of parody? Or are there things we have entirely forgotten about but maybe should have a resurgence?
I've been waiting for an excuse to sit down with this. The lighting is brutal, Redford is probably too old and in my opinion there's one too many "Ya falla"s, but the movie is damn good.
It's ironically refreshing that Lonnegan never catches on to them for a reversal. And it works. The tension of the entire movie hinges on Shaw's incredible performance, even if it never happenes, you believe he at anytime could figure it out and then proceed to do unspeakable things to them. Instead we see a man blinded and eventually consumed by his own greed. The pokergame is one of the most tense and enjoyable scenes I've seen in a long time. Awesome.
I would definetly watch a word for word, scene by scene remake of this if they did it properly. I'm not a big fan of the movie's throwback aesthetics as is, the lighting, the sets, the music and the sometimes overstated acting. With more sensual photography and production in general this could be one of my favourites.
I think there's a lot to be said for the grandfathered in thing. I watched this probably ten years ago and remember it didn't do much for me then, so I skipped rewatching it this time, went strait to you guys. The movie doesn't really start until 45 minutes inn and then kinda goes nowhere. It seems to hinge on everything but itself as a movie, the charm of the two leads, that you have an interest in the history or in the subversion of the western genre, as with Unforgiven which also didn't do much for me personally. The indian tracker is a cool element though, with his almost supernatural abilities.
Feels like a perfect incidental matiné on a lazy sunday kind of movie, except for the downer ending.
Speaking of native americans with supernatural abilities, The Missing, a movie I get the impression that one should not like, but I remember liking it quite a bit, maybe a candidate for some closer scrutiny? It's got Cate Blanchett in it, just sayin.
Road to Perdition is one of my favourites. I bought the soundtrack first after listening to it on a whim, and it is a phenomenal score with its gorgeous lyrical piano, brooding drones, motoric pizzicatos and hesitant strings. Subsequently I bought the movie, one of my first DVDs, maybe my first, together with Seven. A good start I would say, and together they probably cemented my love for commentary tracks.
I get the impression that this movie was purely an exercise in form, a playfull romp with horror tropes, and anything seemingly thematically poignant was never intended as anything other than neat, a serviceable thread for the patchwork, and certainly not deep nor a serious admonishment of the audience or the horror genre.
Maybe a lost opportunity but the tone of the piece set my expectations for just a fun time at the cinema, even after all the hype, I was not disappointed.
The most egregious points for me, of what I recall, was the mind control vapours, failing to pay off the Truman character and Marty's comeback after a somewhat explicit death, the combination of sound and situation seemed to make it quite definite. But I appreciate those points could all be a play on or subversion of genre tropes, and they're small quibbles anyway. And some of the creature designs, especially the pin-head homage, didn't really do it for me, but that's a minor taste thing.
I do wish, though, that it was a tentacle rather than a giant hand at the end. The hand may be more in line with the notion of the old gods as us, if indeed that was ever a serious concern, but I still think the tentacle would have been a better choice, more subtle as commentary, more horribly striking as aesthetic.
I agree that they could easly have gone a lot further with the commentary and the meta aspects but I don't think that was what they were aiming for.
Yup, I figured I got the spirit of what you meant and I agree with you in everything above, I just thought your wording was interesting and was simply curious about your answer.
He's definitely got his own particular preferences and preconceptions, but he seems to be quite upfront about those so it's easy for anyone watching to measure the value of his critique for themselves by how their tastes and understanding correlates with his, and that's very helpful, I like that. His Spirited Away review is a good example, as he acknowledges upfront that the movie is not his kind of thing, and also states the premise he lays as a foundation for picking the movie apart. Incidentally I don't care too much for anime either, generally, but I like this particular film and I don't necessarily agree with his premise. His transparency makes me able to make an informed opinion about his opinion so to speak. I think that's a defining quality of constructive criticism. Of course he may show a lack of another defining quality, which would be getting the actual premise of the movie right, and not what he assumes it is or thinks it should be.
And as you mention, his is a particular branch of criticism, and some of his more acerbic tendencies could be attributed to as for effect. His format reminds me somewhat of Yahtzee's Zero Puntuation reviews, except those are funnier
In the end though, I was expecting a rambling rant and what i got was a wellspoken, sans swears, and concise opinion. So I was pleasantly surprised.
Let me pitch a little movie called "Ravenous". I get the feeling it passed under the radar for a lot of people, but it's a really interesting genre movie, it does a lot of things...weirdly. If anyone here hasn't seen it I implore you to. It's got Guy Pierce and Robert Carlyle in the leads, with a host of character actors and a collaboration between Damon Albarn and Michael Nyman on the score, it's an odd duck on all sides.
Unfortunately Jeffrey Jones had to go full pervert but his role isn't that meaty, and you managed getting through Howard the Duck without much incident so that won't be a problem I would think.
I've never heard of Confused Matthew before this intermission and I must say, going by a small sampling, he seems very concise in his critique and frank about his premises for it, not just if he liked it or not but making clear why. It's pointless to discuss taste, so like/don't like shouldn't really enter the conversation in "true criticism", for lack of a better term. Liking something doesn't mean it's good, and the inverse is also true. The qualifier for good here I guess would be structurally sound and delivering on its premise. I like Spirited Away, but I honestly have no idea if it's a good movie, I can't really say what's going on in that story, but i'm not sure he can either, and I'm not sure his premise is right, but at least he presents it for others to evaluate, and that's an honest case.
I seem to share his sentiments on both The Avengers and No Country For Old Men, and looking at his list, probably on a lot of other movies too. There is little more infuriating than everyone hystericaly proclaiming something as brilliant when it's clearly not, in one's own opinion, so now I know where to go for a little validation And it's always healthy to be succinctly challenged so i guess it's a win win.
Though he really undermines his own case with heavy use of explitives, and I guess that's what rubbing people the wrong way, which i totally see, it's really obnoxious at times (ref. No Country For Old Men).
Rob wrote:
CM is one of those guys that seems to love his own taste more than he loves movies.
Doesn't everyone?
Pretty much agree with you guys, the ideas and gags are good fun, and the production design and supporting cast are both great, but it all peeters out at the end and becomes a run of the mill action movie, it's a shame, it does so much right.
I've never cared for Snipes but to my surprise he's a delight in this, Denis Leary, though, isn't particularly good in his role, obviously cast for his little monologue. But I think the movie's greatest weakness is Stallone himself. His heart is in it but he simply hasn't got the chops for the comedy which really hurts the movie big time, and there's no chemistry between him and Bullock. Speaking of, she's an absolute hero, totaly gets the tone and gives it all she's got, and is completely adorable. She never left an impression on me back then, but seeing her now years later in Speed and this I really dig her.
Would have loved to see Kurt Russel in this instead of Sly, he would have brought both the comedy and the chemistry and I could see this becomming a cult classic on the level of Big Trouble, the cheese was ripe for harvest.
The stageyness of the underground city sets got me thinking: Demolition Man The Musical. The tone would fit perfectly with satirical pompous propaganda songs and theatrical machinations. Smoke, lights and primary colors. Could be hillarious.
AshDigital wrote:
Snowflake, is your avatar a take on the Greendale Human Being?
Actually, it's a take on the Dark Knight add campaign, but some of my best friends are human beings 
Great having you guys back, feels like this was something of a stress reliever, everyone's in a palpably great mood!
Well, I'll echo most of the sentiments here, the movie's not very good, and I personally think the conceit of it is quite dumb. But I actually think you could make it work. I believe you guys hit upon the main problem right out of the gate, tone is THE issue. Having all these monsters bumping shoulders is ridiculous by deafult, going from the high concept this should have been a flat out campfest, the more contrived the plot the better. I think the James Bond shtick is great and I think Wenham, Roxburgh and the redhead are in the right movie. If everybody else had followed suit this could have been a lot of fun. I mean, the movie is half of a full on crazy C-movie already, but with ALL the money. How glorious wouldn't it be if it had gone for ALL C-movie too?
A Van Helsing series of movies where he takes on a different monster in each installment would be great though. I'm all on board for that.
Speaking of monster hunters, has anyone seen the Solomon Kane movie? It's good, the climax is wanting, but the movie is good up until that point. It's even got the british Hugh Jackman in the lead, in addition to appearances by Max Von Sydow and the late Pete Postlethwaite.
Now, Del Toro. Of the four movies I've seen, the two Hellboys, Pan and Mimic, I'm not particularly enamoured. I put him in the same category as Gilliam and Burton, it's always interesting to see what they're up to but they never quite seem to nail it. Then again, I hear Devil's Backbone is his best. As for Hellboy 2, it felt to me like a parade of pretty stages, the first movie was better, though not great. Hellboy himself is a big problem, he's not a good character, the guy is invincible, and that's just not interesting.
Catching up is bitch.
Drunkman and Mummy and Helsing, oh my!
*gets milk and cookies*
Trey wrote:
That comment was annoying as hell - it wasn't creative freedom that sank those studios, it was exorbitant spending. Giving an artist creative freedom doesn't mean "let them spend all our money". Creative freedom within reasonable boundaries is what he's talking about.
Yes, artists will get creative with those dollars and there's a good chance you'll get way more than you paid for in amount of work. Whether or not audiences will appreciate the results, well that's a crapshoot.
johnpavlich wrote
The quote is from the Pan's Labyrinth commentary.
Well...there you go then, instincts were right after all 
Thanks for the heads up!
Zarban wrote:
First it made me snort. Then it made me groan. Then it made me smile. Then it made me laugh. Then it made me all warm inside. Then it made me type this.
Swap "snort" for "hmm..." and "groan" for "...OK?" then this pretty much sums it up for me.
I'll add: Nice wings. AND A RAT!
Trey wrote
If you haven't seen it yet, here's the full text of Steven Soderbergh's "State of Cinema" talk in San Francisco this week. In which he offers a lot of great (depressing) insight into why the industry is like it is.
Thank you for that!
It really comes off as a man not really knowing what to think anymore, someone downtrodden and tired. Though he still seems to have some hope for the future, that others will rise to the occasion. I love his strategic advice for pitch meetings, such a saccharine and deeply sarcastic scathing of the people in question.
I think he's spot on about the industry, which echoes Katzenberg's, and I'll make a gamble and guess just about everyone of our's, laments – the people calling the shots now are the business men, not the craftsmen. People without passion or skill for the business they're in. They only care about money and position and the whole machinery is driven by fear of losing these. All decisions are made based upon that fear, not inspiration and love for what they are doing. And that's why everything is falling down, any risk and spontaneity is quelled by fear, a fear that is multiplied by the number of executives, all trying to cover their asses. It's utterly sad.
But, there seems to be a slow improvement, after all, we are getting a hell of a lot of movies of all sorts, all the time, and the industry seems to be getting a bit more creative, some creative dudes have ended up in quite influential positions of late. We might feel they're not making the classics like they used to make them, but that may be an effect of the saturation of movies now compared to then. After all, the milestones are remembered more often than the slight improvements, so looking at the end result now it's not all bad. But it could have been a lot better, and this creative vs conventional is really an eternal struggle. It just feels so unnecessary. Ok, I'll stop now, this is getting rambly and I'm probably way in over my head.
Congrats with the new names, good choices!
Friends in your head is really perfect for a podcast vehicle, in the end I find the company is the essence of it.
redxavier wrote:
Nice name, reminds me of one of my favourite quotes from Dorkman, something like "what's that movie, little Timmy's trapped down the well?".
Yeah, I actually thought it was a Dorkman quote, and then i thought it was a 2001 quote*, seems it's neither, not exactly anyway, but it's kind of a loose reference to both so that's cool.
*except for the "movie" part of course, but you know what I mean
Good read. Katz has his heart in the right place. Unfortunately wanting to do the right thing doesn't work when no one else wants to, or just the person calling the shots.
Fortunately, through the democratization of technology and the rise of profitable DIY culture, there seem to be an inkling of the economic and cultural climate in general moving towards something more decent and sustainable. I hope anyways.
Do you see any lights in the future Trey, any positive trends in the industry?
The Magic Hour
Lamer wrote:
Sounds like something Daffy Duck would say.
Surely a plus!
Just Add Movie (JAM)
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Snowflake
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
