I keep thinking that I should see it again, but I honestly don't know if I could handle it. Especially now that I know how it ends.
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Doctor Submarine
I keep thinking that I should see it again, but I honestly don't know if I could handle it. Especially now that I know how it ends.
Nothing to say about Minecraft, sorry to say. But I do play a lot of indie games, so I'm your man if that ever comes up.
ShadowDuelist wrote:Your post reads like it's arguing with me, but it backs up the point I'm making, so I'm confused.
Sorry, should've been clearer; what I'm saying is that The Man from Earth is, from what I see online (never seen it) played straight. Stuff that's excusable in a satire (such as Hiro Protagonist) is not in straight fiction, which is why it's satirized to begin with.
Exactly. Even if that one element is being played for satire, it doesn't work if the rest of the film is played for drama.
Ron is almost never nice to Hermione. He's rarely even a good friend; we mostly see him jealous of Harry and Hermione's successes. And the few times he tastes success himself he's kind of insufferable. Hermione is almost never anything but frustrated with him.
Ron isn't nice to Hermione because he has a crush on her. Hermione is always frustrated with Ron because she has a crush on him. It's not until Deathly Hallows (which, as Mike mentioned on the commentary, is all about growing up) that they're able to get past all that and admit that they really do have feelings for each other. Given that all the time we spend with them is when they're children/teenagers, it can be hard to see how they'd make a good couple. But according to the epilogue, they've been together for almost two decades, so clearly they both matured a lot post-DH.
Zarban wrote:Things that Hawaiians take for granted seem exotic to us: hula, volcanoes, human sacrifice, etc.
Gosh, you make one little comment about pineapple on pizza and the thread works its way down to human sacrifice in no time at all.
Wouldn't be the first time.
Harry and Hermione had no romantic chemistry in the books, so I really don't get this at all. Ron and Hermione make a good couple. Why? Because she wrote it well enough that we believed it.
http://popcornculture1.wordpress.com/20 … nkenstein/
I struggled for a long, long time with how I wanted to open this review. The problem with writing a genuine, honest critique of a film like I, Frankenstein is that it’s too damn easy. I could do a serious exploration of all the movie’s faults, but this movie is so terrible that it doesn’t even deserve it. What did you expect? It’s I f**king Frankenstein, people. That is the title. I could put some effort into this review, but the movie sure as hell didn’t, and I’m not getting paid, so why even bother?
I’m reminded at this moment of my Elysium review, in which I similarly broke down the film beat-by-beat to uncover its flaws. But since I, Frankenstein doesn’t even pretend to be coherent, I question the efficacy of this method. Nothing I say will make the slightest bit of sense, so there’s little point in providing context. This is a confused movie, and I question whether anyone on set actually knew what was supposed to be going on. Half the time, even the actors appear not to fully understand what they’re saying. This goes double for Aaron Eckhart, who has to give the most ridiculous exposition and cannot sell it to save his life. He always sounds like an insane homeless man and not a grizzled action hero.
It really does feel like they just wrote a bunch of scenes out-of-order and tried to find some connecting tissue. At one point, Frankenstein (yes, that’s the creature’s name, we’ll get there) has a fight with a demon in an abandoned building. Why? Well, no reason. He’s just talking to his scientist love interest and then a demon kicks down the door and starts fighting him. There’s a lot of that in I, Frankenstein. Things happen because it seems like they probably should, and there’s no real attempt to have them make narrative sense. The bad guys apparently employ a creepy mad scientist, but he shows up in exactly two scenes and it’s never explained exactly what he does. He’s just sort of there.
If you’ve read the original Mary Shelley novel, you probably remember how it ends. Victor Frankenstein dies after telling his story to the captain of the ship which picked him up in the Arctic. His creature shows up to mourn over his body, and talks about how much it regrets the evil it committed. It tells the captain that it plans to burn itself alive, and the novel closes with the creature floating away into the darkness alone.
So obviously this is pretty open-ended, right? According to the producers of I, Frankenstein, it’s open to interpretation at least.
The film begins with the creature carrying his creator’s body out of the Arctic (no ship, no nothing) and to a graveyard where he scornfully buries him. We’re about 45 seconds in, and so far nothing is broken. But it’s in second #46 where the ball gets dropped. While filling in Frankenstein’s grave, the creature is attacked by two demons.
Yup. You read that right. Frankenstein’s monster is attacked by demons. From Hell. They want Frankenstein’s journal for reasons that aren’t immediately made clear. By which I mean that those reasons are never made clear, because this is a terrible, terrible movie. This journal is the film’s Macguffin, and it changes hands so many times that it’s easy to lose track of it. People talk about how important it is, and then other people say that maybe it’s not important, and then it totally is again, and I’m left staring into space thinking about the fact that I’m so privileged that I can afford to spend time and money seeing a movie that I know I won’t like. I’m the worst.
So, yeah. Journal, demons, whatever. Then two church gargoyles wake up, assume human form, and swoop down to kill the demons. The creature kills one, and they kill the other. Apparently when demons die, they turn into balls of fire and zoom into the ground. I hope you like that effect, because you’ll be seeing a lot of it. It really stands out against the muddy darkness that makes up the rest of the scenery. The demons were sent by someone named “Prince Naberius,” because this is that kind of movie. The gargoyles take the creature to their headquarters to meet the queen, played by Miranda Otto of Lord of the Rings fame (and I, Frankenstein infamy.) The queen is one of those rulers who seems totally incompetent at her job but stays in power because she has the “divine right to rule.” In this case, that’s literal, since the Gargoyle Order is fighting on the side of the Lord himself. Sorry, did it take you a while to get to this sentence because you were laughing so hard at the phrase “Gargoyle Order?” I don’t blame you. I just about lost it when they said it for the first time, and that was only five minutes into the movie.
Oh, by the way, a lot of people complained on social media that the film is called I, Frankenstein when it’s actually about Frankenstein’s Monster. Well don’t you worry, guys. The film isn’t that stupid! Miranda Otto (whose name is Leonore by the way) looks into the creature’s eyes and says, “Hey, you have the potential for a soul. You should have a name. Hmm…Adam. Your name is Adam now. Cool with that?” So now his name is Adam Frankenstein.
Adam. Frankenstein.
You know what the worst part of that is? It’s from the book. Seriously. Shelley writes the creature as a literate intellectual, and when he reads Milton’s Paradise Lost he connects with Adam. They were both the first intelligent beings created by someone, you get the idea. I think he actually mentions that he’d like to be called Adam. So apparently someone on the creative team did read the book. They just took a detail from it and sapped it of anything that’s actually interesting. Hollywood!
The Gargoyles would like Adam to stay with them, because he killed a demon in the graveyard and killing demons is super hard for humans. He declines, saying, “I go my own way.” Not at all like the creature from the book who longed for personal connection, but whatever. “I go my own way” is half of Aaron Eckhart’s dialogue, in one form or another. When he’s not reiterating that sentiment in the same gravely voice that just screams “I Can Do Batman Too You Guys,” he’s explaining the film’s plot to someone and doing a terrible job of selling it. Anyway, the Gargoyles give Adam some weapons to defend himself because he insists on leaving. It’s here that we learn that demons can only be killed by weapons inscribed with a certain symbol. The piece of wood that Adam killed the demon in the graveyard with was in the shape of that symbol.
This brings up an interesting question. Why don’t the gargoyles just carve that symbol into their fists or something? Like, if that’s all it takes, then I’d put most of my eggs in the “magic insta-death symbol” basket. They let Adam pick out his own weapons, and he takes two big sticks because he’s so blunt and big and he just wants to hit things. Then he spends 200 years alone in the wilderness. Occasionally demons will track him down and he’ll kill them with his Big Demon-Killing Sticks. After a while, he decides that he’s going to hunt demons instead of letting them hunt him. And finally, after an endless amount of setup and exposition, our story begins.
Adam walks into a nightclub (still narrating about something or other) and sees a demon. It’s not clear how he knows that this person is a demon, though apparently he’s been tracking the guy. It’s also not clear why a demon would have any interest in hanging out in a human nightclub. If you want to chill in a nest of debauchery and sin, the Internet has you covered. Adam chases the demon into an alley and has a fight. During the fight, the demon kills a policeman. This will be the last non-speaking human that we see in the film. After this, the streets of London are completely emptied out and every building is abandoned. By the way, I think it’s worth mentioning that Adam totally instigates this fight. The demon was just minding his own business, having a few drinks with friends, and then all of a sudden Adam Frankenstein saunters in like he’s High King of Big Stick Mountain and starts whacking the guy.
And then the gargoyles drag him in, all pissed because he let an innocent human get killed. “You cannot wage war in the streets!” shouts High Queen Leonore. Apparently she has ADD or something though, because not seconds later their HQ is attacked by the demons and she sends out her army to fight them. In the streets, of course. Oh but don’t worry. Like I said, London’s entire non-main-character population has been disposed of. Maybe they got Raptured or something. Who knows.
The demons attack, and there’s a very long and boring battle that there’s no reason to care about because…who are these people again? When the gargoyles get killed, they ascend in beams of heavenly light, as opposed to the orange descending flames of the demons. It’s good that they drew such a clear distinction, because I’ll be damned if I can tell the two sides apart half the time. I mean, look at these teaser posters.
I dunno about you, but both of these look pretty evil to me. They’ve both got the same scary-looking demon face, only one of them has more pronounced horns. The one that’s supposed to be “good” is doing a threatening pose and snarling, while the “evil” one looks fairly sedate. The movie itself doesn’t do much better in distinguishing them. This isn’t just a character design thing, either. It’s never established why the gargoyles are the good guys, other than that they stop the bad guys from doing bad things. What makes them good? What good things do they do? You can’t define someone based solely on what they aren’t or what they don’t do. And since they spend a whole lot of time being really awful to our ostensible protagonist, you have to wonder whether or not they were supposed to be sympathetic in the first place.
I don’t think I’ve brought up what the demon plan is yet. Well, to be fair, by this point the movie hasn’t either. To be even more fair, the plan changes constantly and makes absolutely no sense. There is zero consistency to the motivations of these characters. It literally changes scene-to-scene. The demon plan is so convoluted and strange that it could hardly be called a “plan” in the first place. Hold onto your hats, because this thing is a doozy. I’ll do my best to lay it out.
So, when demons get killed they go back to Hell in big orange balls of fire. This prevents them from ever coming back to Earth. Why? Who cares. Anyway, they can only come back if they possess a human, but they can only possess humans who are (a) alive and (b) without a soul.
This flies in the face of every bit of demon mythology in history, as I’m sure you’re aware. The whole point of demon possession is that they can take control of a living person who already has a soul. And since Adam is the first living creature to be created without a soul, how would they even know that possession is possible in the first place? It would have been impossible up to now.
Now, here’s the interesting thing. There’s a way to make I, Frankenstein a commentary on theology that’s both intelligent and in line with the themes of the book. The movie just barely brings it up early on, but abandons it for the “demon army” crap. Frankenstein’s monster is the first ever example that God’s power to create life is not unique to Him. There’s a pretty clear religious motif in the book that’s based off this idea, and the message essentially becomes, “Only God has the power to create, if humans try they’ll just fuck it all up.” What if the demons hunt Adam because they want proof that God isn’t any mightier than man? Surely that’s something that Satan could use to his advantage. If you’re going to do a movie that’s about angels fighting demons, how do you not make any sort of a theological point? Yet another example of how brain-meltingly stupid I, Frankenstein is.
What happens next in the film? Honestly, does it even matter? Nothing makes any sense whatsoever, and each scene seems to be part of a totally different story. The demons want Frankenstein’s journal. No, they only need the monster. Oh, wait, never mind, they need both. Except when they don’t. Seriously, you could take two scenes from different points in this movie and it would be impossible to explain how they connect. Random minor characters appear and disappear, like a mad scientist working for the demons who doesn’t actually do anything and appears to have no purpose since they’ve got Yvonne Strahovski working for them anyway. (By the way, her character’s name is Terra. Yup, spelled that way. Get it? BECAUSE SHE BRINGS ADAM DOWN TO EARTH AND SHE’S A HUMAN AND EARTH!!!!!!!!!1!!!1!) Characters have relationships off screen that we’re supposed to care about despite never seeing evidence of them. The two gargoyles who save Adam in the opening scene die in battle early on. The man dies first. Later on, Adam tries to save the woman, who is dying, but she says that she’s happy to go to heaven, because she and the man were forbidden to love each other while on Earth. Adam solemnly nods and lets her ascend. Keep in mind, not only did we barely know either of these people prior to this, but there was no indication of a loving relationship in any of their scenes. This literally comes out of nowhere, and it’s indicative of the entire screenplay’s attempt to create drama when the writers clearly don’t know how to tell a story.
I could go on describing every little stupid thing that happens in the entire movie, but you know what? I’m not going to. I’m stopping this train here. Everything that I’ve said so far (and keep in mind, I barely covered the first third of the film) applies to the rest of I, Frankenstein. If you’re reading this review because you seriously expected anything else, sorry to disappoint. There are movies so bad that they actually merit thoughtful discussion. You know, the kind of movie for which an exploration of its flaws is just as enlightening as a similar treatment of a really good movie. Those films have problems that need to be uncovered and can be fixed. I, Frankenstein is not that. In its wildest dreams, it wouldn’t be capable of imagining a movie as successful as that. There is not a human being alive on this planet who is dumb enough to genuinely believe that I, Frankenstein has any merit as a film. Well, besides being unintentionally hilarious. So is it even worth it to talk about what makes it bad? I think I’ve done more than my fair share of that.
I read something a week or so ago, something that made me think a lot about what I’m doing here. Someone on Twitter said that the best film critics open films up and reveal things inside them that you otherwise wouldn’t notice. That’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot. I think it’s a great way to approach criticism. But not for I, Frankenstein. Because this is a movie that is so self-evidently bad that no one needs it explained to them. If you’ve read this far, thank you for validating the precious minutes of my life that I spent watching this film. Because of you, my time wasn’t entirely wasted. From the bottom of my heart, I thank you. Together, we can rebuild. Together, we can move on. I leave you now with some wise words from an old friend. Words that help to restore the human spirit. Words that inspire greatness in all who hear them. Words that changed my life, leaving me stunned in my seat as the credits began to roll.
“We do not ask for the lives we are given, but each of us has a right to defend ours. I am fighting to defend mine. I, descender of the demon hoard. I, my father’s son. I, Frankenstein.”
–Adam Frankenstein
Never heard of The Man From Earth before now, but apparently the 14,000-year-old main character is named John Oldman so I don't see a lot of potential.
Thanks! Yeah, I was pretty floored. My friends and I just sat there in stunned silence for a few minutes after it ended.
I don't think anyone can dispute that he was one of the best actors of his generation, and maybe in the history of cinema. I'm sure we're all shocked and very upset by this news, so I thought it might be nice to share some of our favorite PSH scenes or moments. He's had such a phenomenal career.
I think that this scene from The Master has better acting than most other actors can pull off in their entire careers.
[Philip Seymour Hoffman's character is particularly adorable)
Well, now I'm fucking crying.
People eat pizza with pineapple?
http://popcornculture1.wordpress.com/20 … yssey-her/
Are we too invested in our technology?
I’ve always brushed that question off as the standard generational denigration that’s existed for as long as the concept of change. The idea that “things were better back then” has always been fallacious, because it implies that people living “back then” weren’t also complaining about how terrible things had become. The critiques of the current youngest generation have always been based on their (okay, our) perceived over-reliance on technology. “People are so attached to their smartphones that they can’t look around and experience real life!” has been the battle cry of crotchety old fogies since the first behind-the-times cable news report on this newfangled thing called “texting.” It always seemed ridiculous. Behind it, there’s the subconscious idea that communicating via technology or the Internet is “less real” than previous forms of communication. I brushed that off as well, because the people you’re communicating with on the Internet are real people. They aren’t less real because you can’t see them and will never meet them, right? Though I can see why it might be hard to instinctively make that mental connection. And yet…
The fact is, our brains aren’t wired to accept that. We aren’t programmed to intuitively connect words on a screen with a real, flesh-and-blood person. Sure, in the back of our minds, we know that a real person typed that. But that person only exists within pre-determined confines. If I don’t want to see any more tweets from someone, I block them, and then that person no longer exists to me because I have no further interaction with them. When we’re upset or angry at something we read, it’s comforting to think that those words weren’t typed by a real person. And our brain makes this happen automatically. Maybe the danger of technology isn’t that it makes us over-invested in something that isn’t real, it’s that it makes us under-invested in what is real. It allows us to create the illusion that we have control over other people, and that they are only there for our benefit.
Spike Jonze’s film Her is about a man who buys a new artificially-intelligent operating system for his phone. After answering some questions about his personality, the new OS boots up and a woman’s voice starts talking. She doesn’t sound like a computer. She’s real. And, being matched to the man’s personality, she’s exactly tailored to fit the needs of the user. What Her does so brilliantly is expose that illusion, while at the same time commenting on a culture of entitlement (particularly in men) and the inherent strangeness of relationships.
Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix) is that man, and he’s a total sad sack. He’s completely isolated, to a large extent by choice, and he seems incapable of expressing personal joy. He has a job writing by-order heartfelt letters for people to give to their significant others. His letters indicate a soulfulness that he can only let out by channeling it through others. He can only express himself when he’s not himself.
Enter Samantha (Scarlett Johansson), the OS that he buys. She’s specifically programmed to be a good match for Theodore, and to encourage his emotional growth. The premise is more than a little creepy, and I’ve seen a lot of bloggers boil it down to “nerdy guy buys perfect girlfriend, completely sexist, etc.” They should probably see the film before ranting about it. As Theodore develops and opens up, Samantha evolves in ways she doesn’t expect. She becomes a real person, with a distinct personality that’s separate from Theodore.
That’s an aspect of the film that I found particularly satisfying. It’s an exploration of male entitlement regarding relationships. A lot of men see women only in terms of how the women would satisfy them. It’s why the phrase “getting a girlfriend” exists. These men don’t understand that relationships are a two-way street, and that women deserve partners who will satisfy them equally. You have to give something to get something. Unfortunately, there’s this idea that women are there to be seduced, and that there are tricks you can learn that will help you do so. It’s a deliberate dehumanization. Her deals with this by having the woman start out as inhuman, and as custom-made to accommodate the man who chose her. It is an inherently sexist idea. The lesson that Theodore has to learn, ultimately, is that relationships aren’t all about what makes you happy. He’s reluctant to adapt to Samantha’s constant maturation, and he’s most uncomfortable when she wants things that he doesn’t. In fact, it could be argued that the film is unfair to Samantha and too generous to Theodore. After all, his arc is the emotional spine of the film. Does Jonze treat Samantha’s development as a betrayal of Theodore? Does the film want us to side with him?
It’s an interesting question, and I think the answer might say more about the viewer than the film itself. Jonze includes an interesting counter-argument in the form of Theodore’s ex-wife Catherine, played by Rooney Mara. She’s the only character who finds anything wrong with the fact that Theodore is dating an OS. Her biggest scene is one of the key scenes in the film. She doesn’t object to Theodore’s relationship on a shallow, anti-technological level. Jonze doesn’t use her disagreement to strengthen any positive point about Theodore’s behavior. Instead, she criticizes Theodore for finding an easy way to reinforce the worst aspects of his personality. According to her, Theodore acted selfishly in their relationship, and wanted to sweep her pain and insecurity under the rug so that he could have the wife that he always wanted. To her, his relationship with Samantha is completely fake, and he only got into it because Samantha isn’t a complicated enough person to have any character flaws for Theodore to deal with. This hits hard, for Theodore and the audience. I think that making Catherine a complex character (and not just a shrill antagonist) gives her ideas a lot more weight, and it rightfully makes me apprehensive to see Theodore as a totally sympathetic character.
Now, this is all predicated on how the film treats Samantha, and it’s her evolution that really drives this point home. Scarlett Johansson gives probably the best performance of her career, and it’s only with her voice. She makes the audience fall in love with Samantha just as much as Theodore does, and the film would have failed if she hadn’t. More importantly, though, she successfully sells Samantha’s added dimensions as the film progresses. I’ll get into this without spoiling anything, but the thing she ends up doing that really upsets Theodore is a pretty clear metaphor for a real-life thing that happens in relationships. Because of that, it’s easy to see the film as having a negative view of Samantha’s behavior. But what makes the film so great is that Samantha doesn’t grovel. Even though she was literally created to serve a single person, she is capable of arguing with that person and standing her ground on certain issues.
Again, I won’t spoil the ending, but it kind of blew me away. It was sold as a film about a closed-off man who learns to open up with the help of a computerized Manic Pixie Dream Girl. What it’s actually about is a man who learns empathy, and with it the understanding that other people don’t exist just for his benefit. An artificial intelligence which was programmed to be perfect for him gains individual personality traits, and this is difficult for him to handle. It takes those events for him to understand that he’s been approaching life all wrong. He starts the film as the kind of guy who wants everything on his own terms. He wants gratification from phone sex, but bails out when his partner reveals a need that he doesn’t share. He goes on a blind date with a woman played by Olivia Wilde, and I’ll just say that the way it ends is related to this. He’s drawn to Samantha because she exists only to service him. The relationship only gets troubled when she reveals her own desires. The film doesn’t want us to weep with Theodore. But it does want us to learn from him.
I don’t want it to seem like I’m demonizing Theodore, or that I think he’s an antagonist. Despite his flaws, he’s a passionate man, and his story is truly touching. His latent reasons for loving Samantha don’t change the fact that he loves her deeply, and Samantha’s origin doesn’t change the fact that she loves him. The film’s most stirring scenes are the ones where everything drops away and we’re just seeing the actions of two people who love each other. It doesn’t matter what Samantha really is, and it doesn’t matter who Theodore really is. Her state of existence doesn’t matter to her, and Theodore isn’t aware of what’s going on inside his head during the height of his infatuation. For all the film’s complexities and thought-provoking themes, the thing it does best is sweet, touching romance. The fact that Phoenix, Johansson, and Jonze are able to get the audience invested in this is no small feat, and it’s a testament to the tremendous artistic skill of all three of them.
So what does this have to do with technology? It goes back to the notion of computers and the Internet making communication “less real.” The Internet affords us a safety net; anonymity gives us solace in the knowledge that no matter what we say online, we’ll never meet the people we say it to and they’ll never know who we really are. As long as we aren’t sharing a physical experience with them, we don’t have to think of them as real people. Theodore loves Samantha for exactly that reason, even if consciously he doesn’t realize it. Samantha lets him open up and be himself without any social anxiety. It’s like the training-wheels version of a relationship.
Full disclosure, this is something that I have personal experience with. When I was a kid, maybe ten or eleven, I was really awkward and I didn’t have any kind of social life. I wouldn’t say I was “sheltered,” but my parents were stricter than average regarding the media I consumed. I didn’t watch the same TV shows as my peers, and I didn’t see the same movies. I couldn’t relate to them on most levels, and that lack of interaction meant that I never learned important social skills. Looking back, it was really my forays into online forums that helped the most. It was an easy way for me to learn which behaviors annoyed people and which made them happy. Being able to communicate without really communicating was like practice for real life. After that, I started to actually make friends. I’ve never shared this publicly, but I feel like I have to when discussing my reaction to Her. Once upon a time, Theodore was a cheerful and happy person. But he was only that cheerful and happy because things were going his way without a challenge. Once his wife started to understand that, she left him. Samantha never really learns that, which means that Theodore has to look inside himself and come to terms with who he is. When she does attempt to make their relationship physical, Theodore is disturbed and put off. He doesn’t like the idea that Samantha might have a life outside of his existence. Just as we try not to think about the people behind our computer screens having lives of their own. It’s too much for us to comprehend naturally. In the film’s achingly beautiful final scene, Theodore makes a real connection outside of himself for the first time, and he gives a piece of himself up for the benefit of another person. It’s heart-wrenching, but in the best way.
It’s worth mentioning that while the film’s focus is almost entirely on Theodore and Samantha, there’s a thread in the background about humanity as a whole starting relationships with these OSes. This is shown mostly through Amy Adams’ character, who is named Amy. She’s Theodore’s best friend, really his only friend, and her subplot reflects his in fascinating ways. She starts the film in an unhappy relationship with her husband, who is very controlling and overbearing. She finds far more satisfaction in a friendship with an OS. It’s not hard to see the parallels between Amy and Catherine. Amy wants to divorce her husband for the same reason that Catherine wanted to divorce Theodore. Her story seems to be the mirror image of Theodore’s. Although we never meet the OS she befriends, it’s made clear that their relationship has helped her get over the pain of her divorce. The important difference is that Amy starts in the opposite position of Theodore. It’s interesting, therefore, that she seems to have a much more healthy and stable relationship with her OS than Theodore has with his. Jonze cleverly uses extras to show the progression of humanity’s general relationship with OSes. More and more people in the background are shown talking to their phones, and eventually it gets to the point where literally everyone is. I used to think that communication through technology was great because it allowed people to connect no matter where they were. Her rebuts that it’s just the opposite, and that technology is actually making us far more self-centered by tricking us into thinking that we have control over it.
Her takes place in the near-future, not the present. It’s designed as an extension of the world as it exists right now. The production and costume designs nail it, but it goes deeper than that. Jonze wrote a story about the way things are today, but exaggerated ever so slightly. A benefit of living in the 21st century is that we have a better idea than people at any other point in history of what our immediate future is going to look like. Jonze has you come in assuming that the story is speculative, and you don’t realize until Jonze actually starts to speculate that the film hits home. The story takes place in the future, but the people aren’t any different. If we had the technology from Her in 2014, the exact same things would play out. Because this isn’t a work of speculative science-fiction at all. It’s about us, it’s about now.
In fact, you could easily disregard the technological themes and it would hardly make a difference. Her is about how people relate to technology, but at its heart it’s just a film about how people relate to each other. They’re twin themes, and they can be examined together or separately with equal fulfillment. They represent what I think are the two great accomplishments of Her, and of Spike Jonze. His earliest films were purely intellectual in their study of humanity, while his most recent film Where The Wild Things Are is purely emotional. Her is a balance of both, and it shows that Jonze has mastered the head and the heart. The world has advanced so rapidly in the last twenty years, and this is one of the few films that explores what it means to be alive in this moment. Humanity is still trying to figure out what all this technology means to us, and it’s about time that we got an artist’s perspective on it. One of the purposes of art is to help us better understand ourselves, and Her is unique in what it helps us understand. It’s one of the first of its kind, and a true original. It’s the best film of 2013, and we’ll all be thinking about it for a long, long time to come.
I can totally picture Affleck as Bruce Wayne. And I think Eisenberg has a lot of potential with Lex Luthor.
iJim wrote:Which is more than I can say for Ben Affleck.
I SO do not get the Affleck hate.
Me neither. It was only a few months beforehand that everyone was talking about his creative resurgence, and what a disappointment it was that he wasn't nominated for Best Director. Then all of a sudden he's cast in a big blockbuster and everyone hates his guts. What gives?
The villains could have gotten away with being broad caricatures if the rest of the world was just as broad. But it isn't. It's a very realistically gritty world, and cartoonish bad guys don't fit into that at all. It's a major disconnect.
The problem is that the broad portrayal of the villains is totally at odds with the gritty realism of the world. Elysium is supposed to be ruled by these cold, calculating monsters, but nothing they do is actually like that.
Also, while the movie tells us that they don't care about humans at all, there are a lot of details that directly contradict this. For instance, why would they bother keeping extensive records about humanity if they didn't care about humanity? Why would they have a bay full of drone ships that are programmed to automatically carry tons of med-pods down to earth if they didn't care about earth? The movie tries to have its cake and eat it too, and it doesn't even fit with the established world.
I actually think this might be my favorite film in the series. I think it nails the balance between the sense of humor of the books and the dark dramatic tone of the films.
After the marathon, I think my ranking is 6 > 7.1 > 3 > 7.2 > 5 > 2 > 1 > 4
Also, gotta say, I agree with Kyle about the shot of Snape shushing Harry. It justifies why Harry doesn't run up and try to save Dumbledore, which a lot of fans were bothered by. Because in the book, Dumbledore petrifies Harry underneath the invisibility cloak, so he couldn't have helped even if he wanted to. When Harry obeys Snape and stays quiet, it's Harry's last opportunity to stay true to his suspicions. But instead he stays true to Dumbledore, and it fails him. This is a set-up for the reveals in the next book about Dumbledore's motivations regarding Harry, as well as Snape's. I think it's a great moment and I like it a lot more than what's in the book.
I love the character design. They have a little bit of wear and tear on them. So pumped for this movie.
This is the one with Color Correction Smackdown 2013: Rumble In The Livestream.
Hey, I just remembered a detail from the movie that I'm sure you science nerds will LOVE.
The finale is predicated on the impending reanimation of this Frankenstein's Monster Army. The demons need bodies to possess so that they can return to Earth, but those bodies are useless if they aren't alive (?) so they need a body that's alive but that doesn't have a soul (???). So there's a ticking clock element introduced when the villain starts the reanimation process, and we see an LED screen on each of the machines that reads "0% REANIMATED."
And it starts going up. "1% REANIMATED. 2% REANIMATED."
Hey, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that being alive or dead isn't a FUCKING SPECTRUM. Like, either you're alive or you aren't. What does it mean to be 45% reanimated? Especially considering that none of them wake up and start moving until the thing reaches 100%.
I can't believe I sat through this whole movie sober and didn't kill myself.
He could replace Woody Harrelson in Now You See Me with that pose.
I liked it alright. The first half was very very strong. It's basically a profile of young people who know exactly what they want but have no solid plan to get it. I found the complex development of the revolution fascinating, but it gets dropped for a while in the middle once the violence starts. And the ending really drags on. Still, I think it's very good overall.
"Inconsequential" is a great way to describe the music. A lot of the songs seem to be there just because it's a Disney movie and there are supposed to be songs. The song that the trolls sing is a good example. It's also, weirdly, the last song in the film.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Doctor Submarine
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.