676

(8 replies, posted in Episodes)

Eventually I figured out that I could make new YouTube channels under the same account, and switch between them. So I just kept making new channels.

677

(8 replies, posted in Episodes)

Somewhere in this one, the chat automatically banned me. I'm enjoying going over the parts I remember of this night, in two-hour chunks week by week.

Something I noticed during this rewatch: MAN does Cuaron love his sexual motifs. It's all over Gravity, and it's all over this. Really fits with the puberty themes. The joke about the opening scene is "LOL Harry's playing with his wand!" But actually, though. He's hiding under his sheets late at night, making sure that his guardians don't find out. It's 100% deliberate, and a direct masurbation metaphor. So, yeah, he's practicing spells outside of school.* But it's worth it because of what Cuaron is trying to do.

What's brilliant about this film, as compared to the first two, is how it takes the first steps into the world of the adults. For the first time (except for one scene near the end of Chamber) we see the professors removed from the context of their jobs. That's what's great about the scene with Harry under the Invisibility Cloak, secretly listening to authority figures talking about him, and about things he knows nothing about. He's sneaking into the realm of adulthood, but he doesn't really belong there yet. There's also the scene where he eavesdrops on Snape and Dumbledore talking about him, when they think he's sleeping. It's the same thing. When you're 13, you want to be an adult, but you're not actually mature enough to be considered one. That stuff is in the books, but Cuaron was the only Potter director who brought that out. If there's a problem with the non-Azkaban films, it's that they're so heavy on plot, where Cuaron's focus was on theme. I guess Yates did do a few interesting things regarding the media in Order of the Phoenix, but not on the same level.

*Here's my reasoning for why it's okay for Harry to practice spells, at least in the movie continuity. It's established in the books that Harry has homework over the summer, so it makes a kind of sense that spells would be part of that. I mean, it's wizard school. You've gotta keep up on your spellwork. So, in movie 5, Harry gets in trouble for using a Patronus in Little Whinging. But the letter specifies that he used a Patronus. My retcon is that (in the movies, at least) students are allowed to use certain spells at home, for the purposes of education, but not others. Lumos Maxima would have been on the "approved" list, and Expecto Patronum wouldn't have been. The books just say that the "Trace" goes off whenever you use ANY magic, and I can't remember if they can tell the specific spell being used.

678

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

bullet3 wrote:

It actually bums me out that real Spaghetti Western's don't get made anymore (Django Unchained doesn't really count). Like, even semi-recent stuff like Tombstone and the 3:10 To Yuma remake, they're westerns, but not in the Leone style. Did that whole genre die when he did? I really miss that kind of movie.

Westerns (like pirate movies) are considered "risky" to studios nowadays. The Coens only got True Grit made because...well, they're the Coens, and it was a remake with plenty of marketable stars. And True Grit did pretty damn well if I recall correctly. But Spaghetti Westerns have such an esoteric style that it's hard to play them straight for American audiences. You risk coming off as too goofy.

Seeing it on Christmas. Not eagerly anticipating it, seeing as how it's even longer (fucking hell, Peter) than the first one. I am curious about something, though. How do they pull off Smaug's talking? Like, a dragon's mouth isn't exactly suited to human speech. Is it just a telepathic thing, or do they somehow animate his lips to say the lines?

680

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Trey wrote:

Yeah, the movie made a fatal error right from the beginning by

SPOILER Show
establishing that medpods can do anything, instantly, with no apparent "cost" of any kind.    It only got worse at the end when it was revealed that Elysium is equipped with hundreds of the things in storage, ready to fly down to Earth on a moment's notice.

Which means that the "bad guys" literally are just being bad guys for the pure fuck of it because they have no reason to deny Earth people access to medpods.    I mean, why NOT let an occasional shuttle fly up to Elysium, in order to let some sick kids get their cancer cured in three minutes?   This is the worst kind of screenwriting, where the bad guys have no justification for what they do other than just being mean.

A lot of the stupid in the premise could have been fixed by establishing medpods as an extremely rare luxury.  Of course then the movie couldn't have its magic beany ending where suddenly everyone gets a medpod, yay.

Not to mention the INSANE stupidity of

  Show
the shit with the Elysium source code. Apparently they can instantly (and permanently, I guess, because otherwise the ending is meaningless) change everyone on Earth to a citizen of Elysium by changing ONE WORD in the code and hitting enter.

Oh, and while we're on the subject, Jodie Foster's whole plan is to use the code to install herself as president. That doesn't make sense, because if I hack the White House website and change every instance of "Barack Obama" to my name, that doesn't make me the president. But then they make it even stupider in the third act, when she declares a state of emergency, which the law dictates gives her presidential power! WHY WOULD YOU BOTHER WITH THE CODE BULLSHIT? It's apparently super easy to get all that power so there's no point in doing anything with the code.

681

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Everything with Kruger in the third act is dumb and terrible. The whole "twist" is there for the sake of having a twist, even though there's NOTHING before that to indicate that he would ever do what he does. 

  Show
Also, fuck the Medpods are dumb. I like how when it repairs Kruger's face, it restores his beard, even though there is literally no reason it should do that. Also, apparently they can instantly bring you back to 100% after getting your fucking face blown off by a grenade, but when Delacourte gets slashed in the neck, there's no saving her. Also, why are they programmed to only work for Elysium citizens? I get the idea, but there's no reason why Elysium should have extensive records of every earth citizen, because it's been established that Elysium doesn't care about Earth. It's not like they rule earth with an iron fist. Why would they bother? On that note, why would Elysium have a plan in place to automatically send out shoots full of Medpods and medical robots to earth if they DON'T CARE ABOUT EARTH? Fuck Elysium.

682

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I have, and Jodie Foster was just as bad if not worse.

683

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

He was okay, but his character was dumb and nothing he did had any motivation.

Also, Jodie Foster and William Fichtner were fucking AWFUL.

684

(9 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

And there's a cat on the Van Ronk album cover. Wow.

685

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I'd link to my review but it's in the Reviews section of the forum so check it out if you want. Suffice to say that nothing in the movie makes a lick of sense, not to mention the terrible performances and world building.

686

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

You guys are being wayyyyyyyyyy too lenient on Elysium. That movie is a fucking abomination. Worse than Into Darkness and Man of Steel combined.

687

(9 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

  Show
Hmm. I guess there's no reason the ending couldn't be that. It certainly makes more sense in the context of the rest of the movie. The repeat of the waking up bit threw me off. 

Llewyn Davis is not a bad guy.

The people who actually know him might tell you different, and they'd be justified. He's self-absorbed, sarcastic, and occasionally just plain mean. But he's not a bad guy. He's sad, he's haunted, he's broken. He's missing something that he'll never be able to recover, something that made him a whole person. And the worst part is that he already knows all these things. This movie isn't pushing him towards realization, it's following him through despair. It's a bleak story with no real conclusion. It's also the best film of the year.

It all hinges on the actor playing Llewyn, really. He's in practically every frame of the movie, and if he can't sell Llewyn's central dichotomy, the movie won't work. Llewyn has to be a jerk, but a defeated one. If you don't feel for Llewyn, you won't connect with the movie. Oscar Isaac is more than up for the job, and he makes Llewyn one of the richest characters that the Coen brothers have ever created. The movie tells you next to nothing about his past, but you still feel like you know everything about him. It's a character study masquerading as a dark comedy. One thing it isn't trying to hide, though, is how layered it is.

Inside Llewyn Davis plays more like a text than a movie. Every scene is filled to the brim with subtext and metaphor, but never in a way that feels deliberately cryptic. In fact, the Coens lay out their central metaphor blatantly in the first ten minutes of the movie. One throwaway line turns out to be vital to the film's central conceit. The Coens really like doing this. They don't dwell on the most meaningful aspects of the story. At least, not until the end, when they start putting pieces together. That makes the movie sound like it's very mysterious and hard to understand, but it's really not. It's a smart movie, and undeniably entertaining, but it's also rich and meaningful. It doesn't survive on the weight of its metaphor alone, but deciphering all those little details makes the film a much more rewarding experience. It's hard to talk about those details, unfortunately, because it's better to have conversations about them on your own. Suffice to say that this film has a lot more in common with O Brother, Where Art Thou? than the prevalence of diegetic music. 

Speaking of which, you can't have a review of this film without talking about the music. Much like the character study aspect of the film, the music is far more congruous with the story and the characters than it might seem. After all, these are all traditional folk songs. They weren't written (except in one fantastic instance) specifically for the film. The Coens make it seem like they were, though, and not in a labored and insincere way. The opening scene of the film has Llewyn singing a heartfelt rendition of "Hang Me, Oh Hang Me," and it's a perfect primer for his personality. "Hang me, oh hang me, I'll be dead and gone/Hang me, oh hang me, I'll be dead and gone/I wouldn't mind the hangin', but the laying in the grave so long, poor boy/I've been all around this world." When he sings that last line, you can tell that he means it. He might as well have written it himself. This sort of synergy goes right to the heart of the film. When Carey Mulligan's character Jean sings the line, "Not a shirt on my back, not a penny to my name. Lord, I can't go back home this-a way," she gives Llewyn a meaningful look. Their relationship is both hateful and caring. They had some romantic relationship in the past, and it clearly ended badly. Jean despises Llewyn, but she she can't help but be concerned about him. He tells her not to worry about him, and she replies, "With you, I worry." He tells her that she shouldn't. "Yes I should! God knows you never do." The look on her face is one of contempt, and she thinks she's insulting him, but you don't use those words towards a person you hate. When she sings that line and gives him that look, she means to steer him away and help him at the same time. Their relationship is contradictory, but deeply felt. And when Llewyn sings "The Death of Queen Jane" later on in the film, it's clear who he's really singing about.

And then there's the scene that everyone's talking about, the "Please Mr. Kennedy" scene. It's hilarious, memorable, and insanely catchy. You can find it online, but I encourage you not to listen to it until you see the film. It'll spoil the surprise. This is the only song that was written specifically for the film, although the title is taken from a similar novelty song from around the same time. That one was about farmers, but this one's about space travel. It seems like a great stroke of luck when Llewyn is invited by his friend Jim (husband to Jean) to fill an empty seat in the recording session. Of course, Llewyn's not a lucky man, and even this positive turn of fortune ends with cruel irony. "Please Mr. Kennedy" isn't a good song, but it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be the kind of cheesy crap that you write to make a quick buck. In real life, "Please Mr. Kennedy" hit #1. It's the kind of song that's antithetical to the music that Llewyn defines himself by, so of course it's going to be immensely successful. The final scene of the film also foreshadows the end of the folk movement, in a great way which I won't spoil.

None of those songs come close to the narrative significance of this one, however. Not too long after the opening scene, we hear a recording of Llewyn and his former partner Mikey singing "Fare Thee Well," another traditional song. This one's about a man pining for his lost love. The full extent of Llewyn's split with Mikey isn't revealed until about halfway through the film, and there's nothing romantic implied, but you can tell that they were very important to each other, and the end of that partnership hangs over the entire film. Llewyn doesn't have someone to lean against, to restrain him, to complete him artistically, and he's collapsing. "Life ain't worth livin' without the one you love," they croon. It's telling, then, that this film about an artist who can't succeed without his partner was made by the Coen brothers, arguably one of the most successful cinematic duos in history. Is the film an exploration of their need for each other? It's a great read of the film, one that Matt Singer explores in much more detail in an op-ed for The Dissolve.

Normally in a review this positive, this is the point where I'd explain the film's flaws. But honestly, I can't think of any. There's a long section of the film which covers Llewyn taking a trip to Chicago, and it tends to drag, but the payoff of the trip excuses that. It turns into yet another cruel joke that the universe plays on Llewyn. And because we feel like we sat through that car trip with him, the joke is on us as well. And...yeah, that's about it. A film that's this dense and complex in its themes and metaphors might be expected to stumble at some point. Inside Llewyn Davis is consistent in its greatness. There's not a single moment that doesn't feel necessary, not a scene that doesn't work. It's a film that only true masters of the craft could make, and no one could doubt that Joel and Ethan Coen are masters indeed. If this film doesn't prove it, what does?

And then we come to the ending. The Coen brothers have made movies with surprising non-endings before; No Country for Old Men and A Serious Man come to mind. Unlike those films, though, the ending of Inside Llewyn Davis feels both completely unexpected and completely appropriate. Try as he might, Llewyn can't find an ending to his story. At one point, he walks by a movie theater and sees a poster for The Incredible Journey, the movie about the pets who walk 200 miles to get home. Llewyn focuses on the cat, and the cat stares right back at him. Llewyn's relationship with the orange tabby which is all over the marketing for the film is perhaps the strongest in the entire thing. Maybe that's because it's the closest that Llewyn comes to having a relationship with himself. His Incredible Journey begins before the film starts, and might not ever end. And maybe that's not okay. It's more than a little bleak, and more than a little cynical, and more than a little sad. But that's who Llewyn is. We leave him in the only state he can possibly exist in, and even though it may seem sad, it couldn't be any other way.



Post script: I'm taking this opportunity to discuss spoilers, so if you haven't seen the film, don't read any further.



  Show
First, I want to quickly discuss the silly debate that erupted on Twitter in the wake of the film's opening. Was Mikey the son of the Gorfeins? Not that it has any real impact on the film, but I think that he is. For one thing, it would explain how Llewyn got so closely acquainted with the Gorfeins, a very rich couple living in the Upper West Side. And if they aren't Mikey's parents, they sure do seem to have a close relationship to him. When Mrs. Gorfein starts singing "Fare Thee Well" along with Llewyn, he stops and asks her what she's doing. She replies, with a tad bit of incredulity, "It's Mike's part." To me, that indicated a familial relationship. She feels like she has custody of Mike's part because she's his mother, and he's dead. The most intriguing part of the scene is when Mrs. Gorfein storms out sobbing. She says something that's hard to hear in the beginning. It sounds like, "[mumble, maybe "You"] sleep in his room!" My read on that line is that she's offended that Llewyn would disrespect Mikey, even though he sleeps in Mikey's room. There are bits that don't fit. Mikey's last name on the record sleeve isn't Gorfein, but it's entirely possible that he just changed his last name to something less unwieldy. Bob Dylan did. The other point that people have brought up is that the Gorfeins don't introduce Llewyn as "Mikey's friend" or "our son's friend." They call him "our folk singer friend." The joke is that the Gorfeins apparently enjoy collecting acquaintances of various stripes, but they're right. Why wouldn't they introduce him in the context of their son? There are ways to explain this away, but there's really no point. I love the idea that the Gorfeins are Mike's parents, and I think it adds such an interesting texture to that dinner scene, but the movie as a whole isn't affected by this question.

Next, the cat. Right up front the Coens show us their hand, and we don't even know it. Llewyn gives the woman on the phone the message "Llewyn has the cat" to convey. She hears it as "Llewyn is the cat." Well, there you have it. Llewyn is the cat. They told us in the first ten minutes of the movie. So, let's extrapolate. What does that mean? It certainly makes Llewyn's interactions with the cat take on a whole lot more significance. Right off the bat, the cat is stuck with Llewyn. They're forced together because the cat runs out of the apartment. Perhaps they're drawn together. Llewyn spends a little while trying to find a place to keep the cat. Just like him, the cat has nowhere to go and is constantly looking for a place to stay. That's the most obvious connection. But then things get interesting. The cat runs away from Llewyn. It abandons him. Why? Well, it's a pretty clear foreshadowing of Llewyn's own abandoning of the other cat later on. The Gorfein's cat is named Ulysses, as we later find out, so that's how I'll refer to him from now on. At the end of the film, we find out that Ulysses made it back home on his own against all odds. That's not only a connection to The Incredible Journey, it's also a reference to the great journey that Ulysses' namesake went on. We don't see Ulysses again until the end of the film, and Llewyn spends most of his time after that point with a random stray cat who he mistakes for Ulysses. This is the Other Cat, who goes unnamed. Where Ulysses' Incredible Journey has a destination, the Other Cat's doesn't. In that way, the Other Cat is much more like Llewyn. He's a wanderer, perhaps not by choice. This time, Llewyn is draw to the cat, instead of the other way around. And he has a deep connection with it, whether he knows it or not. After finding out that the cat isn't the Gorfeins', he no longer has any responsibility for it. But he keeps it for a while. It might seem for a while as if he's learning compassion, and learning how to care for another person. But it's all a facade. He abandons the Other Cat at the first opportunity. Llewyn can't connect with other people, and since "Llewyn is the cat," this means that he can't even connect with himself. His last encounter with the cat is violent and depressing. The cat runs across the road late at night as Llewyn is on his way back to New York, and Llewyn nearly runs it over. He sees that there's some blood on the bumper, and he sees the cat limping into the forest, hurt and alone. Even though Llewyn's just as hurt and just as alone, the movie seems to suggest that he's doing it to himself. This moment is in close proximity to another, wherein he think about whether or not to go to Akron and visit a child he had with a woman two years earlier. He thought that she had had an abortion, but a few days before he was told that she decided against it and moved in with her parents in Akron. Llewyn is given the chance to reach out to his child. He's given the chance to care for another person, a person who is his responsibility. But he doesn't. He keeps driving. And very soon afterwards, he hits the cat. Is it another example of the universe's punishment? Or is the universe telling Llewyn that his problems are his own? The movie never comes down one way or the other, and I'm glad that they didn't. The movie is all the better for it.

Finally, the ending. I can imagine some people finding the Bob Dylan appearance a little self-indulgent on the part of the Coens, who had resisted that kind of Forrest Gump-style gag throughout the film. For the first few seconds, it's subtle. The young man taking the stage is perfectly framed above Llewyn's shoulder. Even though he's out of focus, you can see Dylan's trademark harmonica around the man's neck. And then you hear that voice, the one that could only belong to one singer. He's following up Llewyn's solo performance of "Fare Thee Well" with a song called "Farewell," which is remarkably similar. The implications here are twofold, and the friend I saw it with read the scene in a totally different way than me. I saw it as a quasi-hopeful note to end on. Folk music is about to be huge. The character played by F. Murray Abraham didn't "see a lot of money" in Llewyn, but once Dylan hits the big time, he might think differently. Llewyn lives at the center of the folk music scene, so it's not unreasonable to think that he might find some success in this new movement. My friend saw it differently. She said that it was an intensely cynical ending. By showing Bob Dylan taking the stage after Llewyn, the movie implies that Dylan is about to make folk music commercial, which means that artists like Llewyn who aren't as marketable will get left in Dylan's dust. It is pretty interesting that Dylan plays a song so similar to Llewyn's, so I think that this could go either way.

Of course, that's not the only aspect of the ending worth talking about. The final scene is an identical copy of the first scene of the movie, with only a few minor differences. It opens with Llewyn awakening in the Gorfeins' house, and he pokes his head out the door in the same way as before. He doesn't let the cat out this time, though. In the final scene, Llewyn performs "Hang Me, Oh Hang Me," and makes a joke about folk music, just like in the first scene. But in the final scene, he then performs a solo version of "Fare Thee Well." This might imply that he's moved on from his partnership with Mikey, and that he's ready to work alone. It might also imply that he's still stuck in the past and he'll never be free of it. Who knows? The final scene goes on identically to the first, plus the presence of Bob Dylan. Papi tells Llewyn that he was "a real mess last night," and this time we saw what he was talking about. Llewyn goes outside and gets beat up by the same man, in the same way, for the same reason, and they say the exact same things. Even the shots are identical. What are the Coens saying here? It seems that Llewyn is stuck in a loop. At first this scene threw me, because this idea hadn't been present throughout the rest of the film. But it makes complete sense. Assuming you take the more cynical interpretations mentioned above, it means that Llewyn hasn't learned anything and will continue to repeat this bleak cycle of despair. Maybe it's a meta commentary on the nature of movies. This is a stretch, because there's nothing else like it in the movie, but it's an interesting thought. Llewyn only exists within the confines of this film, this story. Every time you watch the movie, you're watching Llewyn's entire existence. So of course his life is a never-ending cycle. It's designed that way. There's no beginning to his story, and no end. Inside Llewyn Davis isn't a line, it's a circle. In the last line of the movie, Llewyn sarcastically says "Au revoir" to the man who beat him up. Of course, right after that line, the credits roll, so he's really saying goodbye to the audience. And why is he saying it sarcastically? Because he knows he'll see the man again. And he knows the audience will see him again, too.

689

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Goddamnit.

690

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Ewing wrote:

I personally loved the hell out of Elysium. It didn't have the deepest characters by any means but that shit almost never bothers me if the plot, setting, and action entertain me; which they all did. Also, Sharlto Copley ruled as Kruger, just like he rules with everything he does.

http://i.imgur.com/DZbDr.gif

691

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Faldor wrote:

You should make it Mrs Submarine, then do the other thing  smile

I mean, at this point I'm definitely considering it.

692

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Just got back from Inside Llewyn Davis.

...

Fuck.

Fuck.

I want to marry this movie.

693

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Ewing wrote:

Every time I hear someone talk about Her, I have flashbacks to this:

http://cdn.crushable.com/files/2012/09/ann-veal-her.gif

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbYuKToCMAA0YfC.jpg

694

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Trey wrote:

So HUDSUCKER, ARIZONA, LADYKILLERS, yay.  NO COUNTRY, LLEWYN DAVIS... wait, that's it?  You're just stopping there?  smile

Hahaha, have you seen A Serious Man? It takes that "non-ending" thing to an extreme, and some people think it's basically a rebuke to all the people who complained about the ending of No Country.

If I had to pick my top 3 American directors working today, I'd probably go with the Coens, Paul Thomas Anderson, and...I dunno. Maybe Fincher, maybe Aranofsky, maybe Tarantino. Malick is the obvious choice just in terms of pure artistic ability, but I don't really enjoy any of his films so meh. Scorsese, Soderbergh, and Spielberg are masters, but they've been hit-or-miss in the past decade (and even their misses are still mostly good.)

Anyway, the Coens and PTA are at the top, imo.

695

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

This is such an interesting convo. I think that the Coens are arguably the best American directors working, or at least Top 3. And I really enjoyed The World's End. I thought it made up for having fewer laughs than it's predecessors by having stronger characters and performances, not to mention a dark story and several interesting themes.

696

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Oh and I love the Coens. I have yet to see something from them that I didn't love, especially Fargo. And I really loved A Serious Man. I think that's a brilliant film.

697

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Teague wrote:

Wait, first?

What's your David O. Russell thing?

Dunno if I have a "thing," per se. I just haven't really liked any of his movies until now. And the Academy's incredible love for him baffles me.

698

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Just got back from American Hustle. It's a really, really entertaining movie, but the second it ended I forgot it entirely. It's really fun and engrossing, but nothing about it really stuck with me. The most interesting thing about it is how kinetic it is. Everything is always moving, all the time. Even during standard dialogue scenes, the camera is floating down people's bodies as if simulating the POV of the main characters, who are keen observers and great at seeing through people. Again, it's a very well-made movie (probably the first David O. Russell movie I've ever enjoyed) but I don't understand all this awards buzz.

She gets back to NASA and she's like, "Where's my daughter?"

And they awkwardly explain, "She went looking for you...IN SPACE."

Next summer...GRAVITY 2

700

(44 replies, posted in Episodes)

avatar wrote:

In the commentary, you guys spoke about how Rorschach was a the ultimate far right-wing vigilante. Is there a left-wing equivalent in comic books?

That's really interesting. Now that I think of it, a lot of superheroes are pretty conservative. In the current Marvel movies, Captain America and Iron Man are very opposed to government overreach. In the comics, Iron Man is more liberal, I guess. He supported the government during Civil War.

Magneto is pretty liberal, I guess. He's super concerned with social reform and equality for minorities. Most of the X-Men are similarly liberal. Batman may be a billionaire, but he's anti-gun and usually anti-death penalty. Isn't Green Arrow pretty liberal too?