I saw CLOUD ATLAS and I'm planning to write a review, but it's gonna take some time for me to get my thoughts together.
Short version is it's awesome and you should go see it.
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Dorkman
I saw CLOUD ATLAS and I'm planning to write a review, but it's gonna take some time for me to get my thoughts together.
Short version is it's awesome and you should go see it.
These days they'd save the longer cut for the DVD/Blu-Ray as there seems to be weaker MPAA standards for home video, but Event Horizon was released just before the DVD format took off and special bonus features became a thing. And it's not a big enough classic (like some lost David Lean footage) to warrant spending millions on restorations, etc.
Fun fact: the MPAA actually has no legal power at all, anyone could technically release a movie without a rating and suffer no repercussions. Except that theater owners aren't willing to do it, because the rating basically screens them against having to deal with Americans clutching their pearls because they weren't warned that they might be exposed to TEH SECKS and/or naughty language. But they can happily ignore the MPAA entirely when it comes to the home video release, and just slap a big UNRATED on the box, which is often a selling point.
And that totally worked out with Final Cut, amirite?
I know, they just updated FCPX with actual, like, features, and not to be a cynic but...well, yeah. I'm being a cynic. I'd love to be wrong. In the meantime, I have a 5 year old Mac Pro and for lack of a clear reason to stay in Macland, I'm gonna pick up some PC components on Black Friday and move on.
Totally planning to get an iPad mini, BTW. But it's pretty clear that's the niche Mac is gunning for moving forward.
The big question for me is what the new Mac PRO will look like.
I was on Old Joe's side the whole time in regards to killing tiny Hitler.
If a future version of me tells me we should bomb Japan, my response is simple "Yes." By all means sir, let's drop that fucker, twice! I don't mean to suggest that you're indecisive, Mr Dorkman. Not at all. Just, uh... complicated.
Actually, no, I'm quite decisive. People should not be punished for something they haven't done yet, period.
If you come across Hitler when he's six years old, and the only action you can think to take is to murder him in cold blood, that to me is a frighteningly simple-minded solution. I didn't think LOOPER was a towering piece of intellectual art by any means, but it at least understood that.
I edit with an eSATA-connected Drobo with no bandwidth issues, and both USB 3 and Thunderbolt are faster than eSATA.
Are you planning to edit with FCPX, though? If not, I'm honestly not convinced it's worth sticking with the Mac ecosystem anymore. One of the reasons I'm not big on the iMac is that I can't upgrade the video card, and GPU acceleration is becoming a bigger and bigger deal on the video editing/FX front. You might consider the PC you can build for the same price (or less) as the iMac if you want to upgrade your rig.
The real crime, of course, is the fact that Somerset makes no physical attempt to stop Mills. For that, he loses his job and becomes a hotel concierge, where he eventually meets an aging socialite and travels the world solving crimes in high society as private detective.
Ugh. I hate that video.
Of course they're aiming slightly above the other guy's head, or to the side -- they're trained to do that. Practically every fight scene ever put to film (with the notable exception of the ones by Tony Jaa and colleagues) could be deconstructed that way because they're not actually fighting. Some fake it in the choreography better and miss more narrowly than others, and better camera angles than the ones chosen in TPM would mask a lot of these moments, but they're pretty much always there.
For example, still one of my favorite fight scenes:
It's great. Fast, exciting, intense. Now watch it without sound. Half the time the blades don't get anywhere near each other, but they're moving so fast and the sound design is such a flurry of clashes to your brain it looks like they're going at it hammer and tongs. And check out 0:37, where Ziyi Zhang is clearly stabbing about a foot to Michelle Yeoh's side.
There are a lot of reasons to rag on TPM. The fact that the Duel of the Fates fight scene is a movie fight scene like any other (and it apparently took 13 years for anyone to notice) is not one of them.
That being said, I agree with redxavier's comments on the ROTS duel. While you're not actually supposed to try to hit the other person, you ought to be pretending to try, and this shit
is unacceptable. I was disgusted when I saw that at the midnight show. But, considering the author of the article seems to consider style over substance to be a virtue, it's no wonder she thinks the duel is great.
To my knowledge it's the only non-fiction found footage horror film that's been made.
I take it you haven't heard of Honey Boo Boo.
Hmmm. Interesting question. I don't end up watching a lot of those I think because, like you said, I use fiction to satisfy my lizard brain so I can keep it out of real life. Also, now that you've got me thinking about it, for all that the RWNJs complain that Hollywood is so "liberal," I can't think of many openly liberal movies that aren't cloaked in satire. A lot of the ideology has to do with aiming to reduce suffering and conflict, which is great in life but boring in a story.
MICHAEL CLAYTON, maybe?
Splitting hairs, but the film is very careful that Seymour doesn't himself commit any murders. Scrivello kills himself and Mushnik was avoidable but it's not like Seymour shoved him into the plant. It's dicey but I agree with Zarban, it's okay that the devil gets beat in the end. Although I will admit it would have been better if Seymour had actively outsmarted the plant rather than just lucking out in discovering electricity made it asplode.
But like I said, I think my bigger problem is the execution/tone than the idea. I saw a local production many years ago and the ending didn't bother me.
So, from Looper's moral, it's not cool to go back in time to kill Hitler as a child? "The needs of the many..."?
It's not cool by my morals either. You have other choices than murdering him in cold blood decades before he commits any evil. Buy the kid some art lessons or something, Jesus.
I once had an idea for a time traveller character whose best friend was Hitler from an alternate timeline where he became a famous artist and humanitarian.
Personally, I don't see any difference between killing an innocent adult and an innocent child.
I agree. If Bruce Willis had murdered an adult who was clearly innocent of any crime, that would make him equally irredeemable.
The gulf between one's politics and one's entertainment is bizarre. Even liberal secular progressives (who wold vote against the death penalty) love a good violent rampage where due legal process is eschewed in favour of summary executions.
I'm a skeptic too but I like a good ghost story. It's all pretend violence. I abhor real violence.
I was thoroughly entertained by Dredd after acting on Dorkman's recommendation.
So, got the Blurry, checked out the "intended" ending. Acknowledging that maybe I just prefer the "Love Conquers All" version of LITTLE SHOP because it's what I grew up with, and that perhaps it will grow on me with further viewings, at this point I have to agree with the test audience from 1985 -- the original ending is just too sad, particularly Audrey's death. While her wish to be fed to the plant so she can finally be "somewhere that's green" is a powerful thematic tie, it's just played so straight and somber, and drawn out, that it sucks all the fun out of the movie and it can't really recover. I can see there being a way to do it tongue in cheek that lets it be sad but still kind of silly, but that's not how they play it.
I was apparently wrong to say the "Mean Green Mother" number was created to replace the original ending, because it's in the director's cut as well, with some subtle differences, and of course the not-so-subtle change that Seymour loses.
The real meat of the restored original ending, of course, is the full-on B-movie finale with a whole slew of giant plants taking over the world to "Don't Feed the Plants." While it was cool to see, and restored to match the film perfectly, it feels more like it was constructed by the marketing department than by filmmakers. Frank Oz wasn't, to my knowledge, involved in the restoration of the ending but rather just gave it his blessing, and the lack of creative supervision is evident. It feels like the first assembly cut (possibly due to matching the workprint), after which the director and editor would usually sit down and look for ways to trim the fat, drop redundant moments, tighten things up. That second pass seems never to have happened here, so despite the visual polish, the pacing of the ending just kind of drags and becomes more about the quantity of spectacle than the quality. They seem to have wanted to put every frame they shot for the ending into the film, which is great for wanting to give us our money's worth, but how many shots of people running terrified through the streets, intercut with laughing plants perched on buildings, do we need? It's a treat for existing fans, but not IMO a version that could stand on its own for people new to the film.
Bullet3 wants to kill old people. You all heard him.
Children are innocent in ways adults probably are not (this is actually antithetical to conservative Christianity, since the concept there is original sin tainting you from birth). You certainly can't compare killing a defenseless child in cold blood to killing a grown man who is actively trying to kill you too. The assassination targets of the loopers are defenseless, too, but you can at least rationalize that they could have done something to warrant it. A child has not. I suppose there is a bit of religious holdover in the notion of the "age of accountability," but even from a secular perspective, an adult can make choices for themselves and be considered responsible for them, and a child below a certain age really can't.
We were on mic discussing movies -- ones we could do a commentary for, ones we couldn't, and ones we wanted to do just not on the day. Switch may have misinterpreted our "We'll do these later" conversation as setting a schedule.
He talks about that in the commentary. They deliberately assembled the murdering-kid scene such that it would turn the audience on Willis a bit.
A bit? As soon as he murders an innocent child he becomes fundamentally irredeemable.
I can't even conceive of a way to execute that scene that keeps you on his side.
It abandons them until the end, when it returns to the documentary conceit to have some interviews giving postmortems on the story. So really DISTRICT 9 is a bad example because it's kind of a confusing mess if you try to nail it down on a "style," it's just so refreshingly unlike the typical sci-fi blockbuster it can be forgiven.
I had this thought too. However, it could be another example of the film throwing ironic loops in our faces. The Rainmaker starts closing loops (for an unrelated reason, in that timeline), and he sends a man back in time who will murder his mother.
This makes no sense.
Old Joe's Rainmaker went bad and hated loopers because...his mom was killed by a looper. Sid will grow up not to be the anitchrist because a looper saved his mother.
Except in the original timeline, his mom wasn't killed by a looper. Young Joe closed his loop successfully and never went near Sid or his mother, so there's no reason that the Rainmaker ever should have existed.
PROMETHEUS is going to happen anyway, no need to take up an October slot for it.
But that's a separate issue to, say, George Lucas referring to a lightsaber as a 'laser sword'. Are we 'stalkers with no lives' for laughing at, or correcting, or being disappointed at Lucas for not knowing/caring about his own creation?
I honestly always got a hipster vibe from GL when he'd do that shit. I think he knows full well it's called a lightsaber -- he wrote the word "lightsaber" in all the damn scripts, even in the prequels -- and I think he knows full well a lot of other things he pretends not to, but he wanted to make a show of having better things to do than care about the minutae of these "kids' movies," to let us know we should all be embarrassed that we don't. Of course, there is clearly a level at which George didn't pay attention to the minutae, but I think its an affectation in at least a few cases.
Ridley Scott, on the other hand, clearly gives no fucks and needs not pretend to give fewer.
I just got out of seeing this and I agree 100% with bullet3 and Rikkitikkitavi.
(X-post)
I never bothered to see the Stallone JUDGE DREDD. It was so famously bad, and I didn’t know the source material at all, so it didn’t seem worth my time to see it. I know Stallone took off his helmet — a lot — which I gather is a Dredd no-no, and I’ve seen clips of him slurring and raving about THELAW, and how he “am” it, at the top of his lungs, so I figured I got the idea. Nowadays I have a bit of a morbid interest in watching legendarily “bad” films — the docket currently includes HEAVEN’S GATE and GIGLI — and they’re much more readily available than they were 17(!) years ago, so I think at some point I’ll probably get around to it. Especially having seen the rebooted DREDD, I’m interested in comparing and contrasting.
But, as of today, I still haven’t seen the Stallone vehicle and I still haven’t ever bothered to become acquainted with the mythology of the Dredd world. So, though I’m certainly dialed-in to the tropes of sci-fi and action cinema, I’m more or less a member of the “general audience” a film like this typically hopes to court.
And I.
Loved.
It.
I know. Despite the fact it’s been getting a strong showing of positive reviews, many of them effusive, each one seems like it must be a fluke. Surely a remake, of an infamous bomb, based off an obscure comic, could only hope to rate “not that bad,” and in its wildest dreams perhaps reach the dizzying heights of “pretty good for, you know, what it is.”
But DREDD, as much to my surprise as yours, is an out-and-out good movie, needing no handicaps or qualifiers; and if you do tag on the qualifier “for what it is” — a big, bombastic, effects-heavy sci-fi actioner — then DREDD might just be a masterpiece.
DREDD takes place in a post-vague-apocalypse world, in which the landmass of America as we know it* has been rendered an uninhabitable wasteland, and 800 million people now live in a single, massive city — Mega City One — stretching from what used to be Boston to the former Washington, D.C. To accommodate such a huge population, massive tower blocks — each one essentially a city in itself, with tens of thousands of residents — now dominate the landscape. Standing as the immovable object against anarchy’s irresistible force is the Hall of Justice, and its police force, the uncompromising Judges. Martial law is the only kind, and clearly has been for several generations.
The world-building is immediately more successful than TOTAL RECALL, and the film is a more powerful work of science fiction, because all of this is recognizable to our contemporary concerns. Environmental crisis, urban sprawl and decay, overpopulation, fear of a police state — all of these are issues we as a society are struggling with right now. It’s not hard to extrapolate them into the future and see a world which, though exaggerated, is nonetheless a vision of some nightmare or other many of us have had.
What makes a man (or woman; more on this in a moment) living — most likely born — in such a world choose to become a Judge? The corrupt ones, the ones looking for an edge or for the small, primitive comfort of having some kind of power over others, I can understand. But the believers, the ones who do it for the sake of order and justice (harsh as it may of necessity be), the ones who value humanity so much they’ve made the choice to sacrifice their own to protect it — the ones like Judge Dredd — where do they come from? What makes them believe?
DREDD is not interested in answering — or even so much as acknowledging — this question, and I actually appreciate the film more for it. It shows just enough of Dredd making certain decisions — offering leniency, however slight, on a few occasions — that I get the sense there’s much more to this character than just what we see in the two hours of this film. Most would-be franchises try to “leave things open” for a sequel in terms of plot, leaving loose ends dangling to be tied up, one hopes, in future installments. This often backfires, though, because the film at hand winds up feeling incomplete, usually leading to poor reviews and no sequel. DREDD is a self-contained film which wraps up its plot neat and tidy, but leaves things open to be discovered, explored, and resolved about the character, which is far more compelling.
And what is the plot? Most films like this tend to get their heads up their own asses deciding they need to dive into the mythology, explore the psychology of the main character. Most movies like this would make the plot about the Judges, probably have it be about corruption within the system and the titular character has to decide between his loyalty and his principles. Movies like this tend to become about revolution. Instead, DREDD — as can be seen in the trailer — focuses effectively on a “day in the life” experience of Judge Dredd and his rookie partner, who get trapped in one of the tower blocks by the crime lord who runs it, and must try to survive while they attempt to complete their mission.
Those who have seen THE RAID: REDEMPTION are right to raise an eyebrow at the familiarity of the set-up, but the execution of each film is quite different (DREDD is not a martial arts film, for one thing) and neither detracts from the enjoyment of the other.
One of the real surprises for me is how smart and tight the writing is on DREDD. Economy of detail, stakes constantly rising, characters’ choices and behaviors are always justified but they don’t spend too much time explaining themselves. The film trusts the audience — and itself — in a way few genre films do. When the rookie Judge Anderson must execute her first-ever criminal, she doesn’t give any long speeches before or after about how she’s never done it before, doesn’t get all hysterical and useless. Judge Dredd doesn’t have time for that shit, and neither do we. Like him, we know what happened there, and like him, we’re just watching to see how she copes with it. There’s a lot of that in the film, stuff the movie knows we get and therefore, blissfully, leaves unsaid.
A film like this — in a brutal world where summary execution of criminals by law enforcement is the norm — needs to be not just an R-rating, but a hard R; DREDD hits the sweet spot of being unflinching without being unbearable, though your mileage may vary depending on your tolerance for blood and gore. It’s not SAW — it doesn’t revel in the brutality — but it also doesn’t turn away, not immediately. This is how this world is, the movie tells us. You wanted to see, so look at it.
The direction is also surprisingly confident and, believe it or not, restrained. Despite having a built-in excuse for bullet-time action — the story involves a drug called, appropriately, “Slow Mo,” which heightens the user’s perception and makes time seem to slow to a crawl — it’s used to tell the story, not to show off. There’s precious little showing off here, no impossible over-the-top camera moves or crazy editing (with the exception of a few well-motivated moments). It’s shot well, but simply, allowing the film to tell the story and speak for itself rather than become lost in the land of style.** It basically pretends it’s a low-budget film being shot in this world, which makes it all feel much more real and — even in 2D — immersive.
Speaking of which, I saw it in 2D but, for the first time, I’m strongly considering making my second viewing 3D. It’s a great movie in 2D, without any of the awkward, forced staging of a film designed to get in your face (I’m looking at you, TINTIN), yet there are moments in the film which I could see being pretty breathtaking with the added depth if the 3D is done well, which those who have seen it that way say it is.
As with RECALL, the VFX are so good, and so pervasive without being obtrusive I have to give them a nod. The sun-bleached city exteriors are phenomenal, and I only know the interiors of the tower block are VFX (shots within the massive courtyard/atrium anyway) because it’s impossible to build such a location. I couldn’t begin to guess where the set ends and the extensions begin.
Most surprising, though, was how a movie like this — a big, explodey, testosterone-fueled thrill-ride — was also the most quietly feminist movie I’ve seen in some time. Though the movie revolves around Judge Dredd, many of the other characters are powerful women, including: Dredd’s boss; the film’s archvillain; and of course Dredd’s psychic cohort. More importantly, the fact they are powerful women is considered entirely unremarkable in their world, not considered emasculating by the male characters nor by the filmmakers. Their wardrobes aren’t sexualized — female Judges dress pretty much the same way male Judges do — and the rapey tropes brought to the table by one particular character are cleverly subverted without treating the victim as being responsible for the actions of her victimizer. It’s not an overt capital-M Message of the movie, but I like the way it treated gender equality as perfectly normative, the way it showed how men can still be strong and powerful without having to "put women in their place" to prove it, something even movies that do attempt such a Message sometimes make a hash of.
It’s not doing well at the box office, no doubt because many people — understandably — can’t get their mind around the idea of a Judge Dredd movie being worth a tin shit. But despite being an adaptation and a remake, DREDD is the kind of sci-fi thriller fans of the genre crave. I know you’re all looking forward to LOOPER this weekend with that exact craving in mind, but please, please also make the time to check out DREDD and give it a bump. You won’t regret it, and I want a sequel.
* As with THE HUNGER GAMES and many other such post-apocalyptic stories, the question of what’s happening in the rest of the world is ignored.
** The movie also eschews the orange-and-teal grading of a typical blockbuster, opting for simple naturalism, a clean image of a dirty world.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Dorkman
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.