476

(84 replies, posted in Episodes)

iJim wrote:

From a quick google of the situation, Rhythm & Hues filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

I don't know what google you're looking at, but they filed for Chapter 11.

iJim wrote:

R&H is probably going to set up shop somewhere much cheaper; be it India, China, or even Canada the only business logic is to move.

They're already in all three places. Didn't help them any.

It seems like I can’t swing a cat these days without knocking over a shambling and/or sprinting corpse. We’ve got zombie movies, zombie video games, zombie books, zombie TV shows, and if you’re a fellow traveler on the geek internets, zombie references practically warrant categorization as a grammatical part of speech.

Rather than feeling burned out on the entire idea of zombies, however, this situation just makes it more difficult for a new piece of zombie media to rise above the noise and capture my attention. Much of the time it feels like the way action movie pitches after the success of DIE HARD supposedly became variations on DIE HARD.

“It’s zombies in a mall!”

“It’s zombies on a train!”

“It’s zombies on an island!”

WARM BODIES is pretty explicitly “zombie Romeo & Juliet.” Nicholas Hoult plays R, a zombie with some sense of his remaining humanity but no memory of his name beyond the first letter. As one of a small herd of zombies he comes across a group of human survivors scavenging in the urban wasteland, and falls in love with a young woman named Julie after eating the brains (and gaining the memories) of her boyfriend, Perry. Just to make sure no one misses it, R’s best friend is a zombie who recalls his name starts with M, and in a later scene where R infiltrates the fortified survivors’ city, he hides in Julie's garden while she pines after him on the balcony.

One of the few pieces of book-larnin’ I still carry at the front of my mind is from a Shakespeare course I took in college. Regarding Romeo & Juliet, the professor pointed out that part of the power of the story is that it’s structured as a comedy, and is in fact very humorous early on. Throughout the play, it goes through many of the same essential beats as a comedy of errors, with miscommunication and mistaken identity, but instead of resulting in hijinks and escalating farce they result in violence and an ever-mounting death toll.

I don’t know if this view informed the filmmakers (or the author of the novel on which the film is based) in their approach to the material, but I think there’s a nice symmetry in taking a story which turns love and comedy into death and tragedy, and using it as a backbone to tell a story about a world overrun by death and tragedy transformed by love and comedy.

As you may know from the trailers, what develops between R and Julie somehow (they wisely don’t even try to explain it) causes R to begin to come back to life, and the effects begin to ripple out to affect other zombies, and will ultimately change the world. As we discussed in the DAWN OF THE DEAD commentaries, part of our fascination with zombies is the way they reflect so much of what we fear about the modern world — about being mindless consumers going about meaningless rituals day after day; about ourselves, or the people we love, being changed uncontrollably into something vile, some other thing wearing our faces; about losing everything we hold dear in an instant and being faced with the no-win choice to either endure or succumb. Zombie tales tend to be bleak, full of terror and loss, the “happy” endings ambiguous at best. WARM BODIES is the first zombie film I can think of to defy this cynicism and say: yes, it may be that we have lost something precious. But we can get it back. There is hope for us and for the future. We can do more than just survive — we can live.

It’s not what I would consider a perfect movie. The movie nearly stalls out in the first act with Julia trapped in R’s zombie bachelor pad, an abandoned 747 filled primarily with vinyl records. It’s the sequence in which they’re meant to be falling in love but which in my view goes on too long, with each scene being much the same beat rather than building on the last. The story of love conquering all is a little too pat and Symbolism 101 (water as a symbolism for rebirth? Such originality!), the plotting in general is a bit superficial, and I think everyone in the end comes out a little too okay with the fact that Julia’s new boyfriend killed her old one and ate his brains.

Still, it’s got genuine humor (Rob Corddry as M is especially fun) and genuine horror, and I appreciate it for its ambition and its desire to say something new with our nightmare du jour. Worth checking out.

478

(84 replies, posted in Episodes)

Oh crap. Now I have to start looking presentable.

479

(70 replies, posted in Episodes)

Zarban wrote:

Wait, so it's not okay to sample something, conclude that it's worthless, and denounce it in a public forum? Maybe you should tell that to Confused Matthew.

http://i.imgur.com/dJ7IKPU.jpg

480

(70 replies, posted in Episodes)

fireproof78 wrote:

So if the movie industry goes this way, then you have no way to separate crap from good because no one can talk about it  hmm

The movie industry has been this way for some time. Review embargos, where no one can post reviews until the film goes into general release, are quite common, and when a studio is pretty sure they've got a turd on their hands they won't even host a screening for the critics. (IIRC, Warner eschewed a screening for MATRIX REVOLUTIONS, which means this is at least ten years old.)

fireproof78 wrote:

I'll ask a question for general consumption-how familiar should a critic be before watching and reviewing a film? I mean, some films you just walk in cold due to the new material but do others require more knowledge prior to reviewing?

I think if you're watching a direct sequel (and I would consider AVENGERS to be one), you should probably be familiar with at least the most recent of the previous films, as your inability to follow the story or keep track of the characters the movie hasn't bothered to spend the time re-introducing may not be a fault of the movie. But a movie which is an adaptation of a story from another medium, or a remake, should stand on its own, and you shouldn't need to be familiar with the source material, though it's sometimes useful to be able to speak to the comparison.

Pretty awesome. I wish there were a picture of the entire thing but he probably can't get far enough back from the thing to take it if that's all in his living room.

BTW, as a general note, this isn't a rule necessarily but I'd take it as a kindness if we made it more of a habit around here to have the subject of threads actually describe the subject of the thread (i.e. not be Reddit). Six months from now if I want to dig up the thread about the epic Empire Strikes Back diorama, it would be easier if that were in the subject line.

482

(70 replies, posted in Episodes)

Now I have to listen to the episode again so I know if I was mean to him. I think I was meaner on the forum than on the air, but now I need to know.

I think it's amusing that an episode inspired by the question of what it means to be in a position where the people we talk about might actually notice, and how fortunate we were that the first major occurrence was cool about it, was noticed and responded to by a person we talked about and he was cool about it.

Both are awful because both tend to be unmotivated and just there because the filmmaker doesn't know what else to do.

If motivated, they can work. DARK CITY, for example, is an extremely fast-cutting film, with an average shot length (according to IMDB) of less than 2 seconds. Yet it's not a film you would think of as a fast-cutting film, because the speed of the cuts isn't meant to disorient you and try to hide the fact that the filmmaker doesn't know what he's doing, but are actually designed to be in service to the story.

And while I don't like shakycam pretty much categorically, well done handheld shooting (e.g. CHILDREN OF MEN) is an aesthetic I absolutely adore. The difference between shakycam and handheld is that shakycam is characterized by the operator deliberately trying to jar and shake the camera, whereas good handheld is characterized by the operator trying his damndest not to.

484

(70 replies, posted in Episodes)

Doctor Submarine wrote:

You don't go to DiF to hear about how a certain camera movement evokes an emotion, or how an actor's performance is influenced by Toshiro Mifune in High and Low.

I certainly hope we're not that pretentious. We get accused of being "film school snobs" plenty as it is.

485

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

fireproof78 wrote:

But, perhaps a new thread should be started...

Yes. If anyone wishes to continue this conversation, please start said thread and do it there.

486

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

I'm starting to wonder if you actually listen to the show very much. Not as an attack or anything, just... I'm not sure where you're getting this impression of what the show is.

At any rate, we've got an episode coming up  (already recorded) all about where we see ourselves in the context of storytelling and criticism, so we can debate it in the release thread whenever that goes up if we feel the need, and let this thread go back to movie suggestions. smile

487

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

paulou wrote:

Haven't suggested Synecdoche in a couple years. So I will again.

Ugh. I thought we were friends.

Zarban wrote:

It's Dredd, man. He hit one perfecta, and now he's on a gambler's high. He's playing every race and betting on the genre movies.

And CLOUD ATLAS. I'm due.

I'm actually trying to start doing movie reviews as a regular thing. A freelance gig the last month or so has boned my going-to-and-writing-about-movies time, but I've got MoviePass so I'll probably be reviewing just about everything that comes out, except probably for the lame comedies.

Not that I wouldn't see DIE HARD WITH A 'SPLOSION anyway...

489

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

BigDamnArtist wrote:

It's easily in my top 5 animated movies of all time.

Yeaaaaahhhh... you don't want us doing a RANGO commentary.

490

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

Seriously, this is how it plays out:

SPOILER Show
KIDS: Aslan, we don't want to be sent home like we are at the end of every adventure.

ASLAN: Don't worry, instead of transporting you here magically like the business with the wardrobe, I did it this time by killing you all in a train crash. You're all staying forever!

KIDS: YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!

491

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

I've only seen the first film. I've never really gotten over how massively twisted the ending of that series is.

492

(216 replies, posted in Episodes)

Thanks for your perspective. Your point about a female character not being believable because she doesn't have the same social struggles as the average woman is interesting. Can't that be a good thing in terms of being a positive example, just like nobody comments on the fact that Nick Fury is black? Isn't not commenting on it within the bounds of how they're treated in itself a strong comment?

There's a thread in Off Topic that started off about Joss Whedon's relationship to feminism but quickly broadened into a general discussion: click.

493

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

Neat poster, terrible tagline.

All these posters insist on being about Jedi. While unlike Trey I wouldn't want them completely excised from Ep7, I do think they should return to being part of the tapestry and not the entire focus of the story.

494

(9 replies, posted in Off Topic)

DREDD. big_smile

Also AVENGERS. I think people responded to it because the characters had legitimately different points of view, rather than having the same point of view and just arguing about who's in charge.

The original MEN IN BLACK did this wonderfully and perhaps the latest one failed to have the same energy because it lacked the interplay.

I think this was probably part of the appeal of LOOPER, too, although like a number of other things I think the film failed to leverage the guy-as-his-own-foil as much as it might have.

495

(9 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Squiggly_P wrote:

Do you think maybe one of the problems with the way they write modern adventure-type movies is the lack of foils?

Oh my god. You're a genius.

The funny thing is that they keep cargo culting it -- they pair characters up, because they feel like they're supposed to, without understanding what the point of the pairing is supposed to be, and like you said about (what we're assuming about) the new Die Hard, they end up being the same character arguing with himself occasionally rather than two characters with different perspectives.

496

(9 replies, posted in Off Topic)

An e-friend of mine wrote an article about this, I think I referenced it in the commentary but here's the link: John Carter, Sad Hero of Mars

497

(66 replies, posted in Off Topic)

johnpavlich wrote:

In those last couple minutes of the video (after Trey walked away), Matthew expresses confusion over Roger Ebert's belief that Cloud Atlas was one of the best films of the year, even though he admittedly didn't fully understand it. I think Matthew feels that to be a contradiction of sorts, or that one cannot occur without the other.

I'm not sure I agree. There are lots of films I love but don't understand or "get", simply for how they effected me or my experience of them.

I'll go so far as to say that needing to take time to wrestle with a film in order to fully understand it is precisely what makes certain films great. It's occasionally difficult to know which films have more under the surface and which don't, although as we've talked about on the show before there's usually a sense of "Okay, movie, you seem to know what you're doing even if I can't sort it out." Whereas Matthew seems to think "I can't sort it out and that's your problem."

Out of morbid curiosity I tried to give the video a chance and, as expected, I had no patience for his attitude and had to turn it off less than a minute in. Just the fact he walked into the theater prepared to take a phone call if one came in, because fuck it -- that's not the mindset of someone who is willing to engage with a film. Why he does film reviews when he only wants to look at films, not watch them, is beyond me.

498

(66 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I'm not pissed off that you're posting the videos, but I know I will be if I watch them. If you think Smith (who I've given up on in the last few years -- anything before he discovered pot is entertaining enough) or Matthew have an interesting point, I'm happy to discuss the point if you summarize it here. But I don't have the patience to sift through their blather to find it myself.

499

(66 replies, posted in Off Topic)

CM pretty obviously doesn't pay close enough attention when he watches movies in general. You bring that shit into CLOUD ATLAS' house and you're gonna have a bad time.

I'd be the first one to agree with him if he were talking about the MATRIX sequels, though.

500

(66 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Ugh. Why do you keep linking to obnoxious people. I am constitutionally opposed to listening to Kevin Smith or Confused Matthew for any length of time.