51

(10 replies, posted in Episodes)

Here are the best movies you might have missed:

Under the Skin

The best movie of 2014, and it's not even close. I give it five years before we've all agreed that it's an all-time classic. Just watch it already.

Listen Up Philip

It's like Inside Llewyn Davis, but they swapped out "melancholy" with "acidic." Very very funny.

The Babadook

Best horror movie in yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeears. You're not as afraid for the lives of these characters as you are afraid for what they'll become in an attempt to survive.

Why Don't You Play in Hell?

A movie that fell from heaven. Mere mortals don't deserve to look upon it.

Obvious Child

Jenny Slate plays a stand-up comic who has a one-night stand, gets pregnant, and struggles with how to tell the father that she's not keeping it. It's one of the year's funniest films.

Lucy

You probably heard of this one, but maybe you didn't bother seeing it because you didn't expect it to be good. You were wrong. Lucy is the best superhero film of the year. It's a great deconstruction of the state of the genre, and its reliance on heroes whose single-minded pursuits of "justice" leave piles of innocent corpses in their wakes. Its ambitions are shockingly grand, as revealed in the Malick-ian finale. This was a big surprise for me. Go see it!!

Non-Stop

See above. I disagree STRONGLY with this film's politics, but damn if it doesn't express them cleverly.

52

(164 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Avatar and Korra aren't anime in the terms you're thinking of. They're Western cartoons, and the storytelling is very Western. The art style takes cues from anime, but that's about it. I agree, I really can't do traditional anime either.

They're also two of the best shows in recent memory, so. There's that.

53

(3 replies, posted in Off Topic)

This movie was great. Very smart take on public mistrust of law enforcement, especially relevant given recent events. I don't 100% agree with its politics, but I like that it chooses to take on this viewpoint without pandering to the right-wing too hard.

And it's also a lot of fun. I think people had a reflexive instinct to dismiss this movie as just dumb action nonsense, which is too bad.

54

(7 replies, posted in Off Topic)

This happens for every studio movie literally every year. They have nothing to lose by campaigning Trans4mers in all categories, and it saves them the effort of figuring out which categories it has a shot in and only campaigning for those specific ones.

55

(449 replies, posted in Off Topic)

avatar wrote:

So just how shit is this? Bloody shit? Fuck'n shit? Or just plain ol' shitty shit?

"Fun" isn't an option?

I'm so amused by the idea of a sequel literally being about going back in time to ruin the original. That's brilliant.

56

(93 replies, posted in Off Topic)

BBQ wrote:

I have no idea who created this, but someone needs to get this image in front of JJ Abrams -- stat.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--R42P1UC1--/osa5qfgnk2ypcpn8vdl9.jpg

Colbert put forth a reasonable theory on his show last night. He says that the side guards aren't separate beams, but refracted from the main one. The metal protrusions are there to protect the user's hand, and slicing through them would still hit the saber.

57

(93 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I think it's funny how, after all these years, Steven Spielberg is finally directing a Star Wars movie.

I mean, JJ's touches are visible here (that upside-down shot of the Falcon, first and foremost) but the opening shot of the trailer + the shot of Daisy Ridley starting up the speeder are Spielberg-y as FUCK. It's a good look for the franchise. My only hope is that JJ restrains himself a little. There are some camera moves in the Star Trek films that are disgustingly flashy, and that Falcon shot toes that line. Not that this was ever a series known for directorial elegance, but JJ can sometimes be hyperactive and I don't think Star Wars works with that feeling.

I liked the trailer, though. It felt less like a commercial and more like a -- wait for it -- tone poem. It gives us nothing about the plot, but we get a sense of the film's tone and some neat visuals. I wish more trailers were like this.

58

(93 replies, posted in Off Topic)

The new saber is actually pretty practical. With it, you can block attacks with the saber pointed at a forward angle, which probably expands your range of fighting motion.

Also, that's not Luke in the cockpit, that's Oscar Isaac's character.

59

(19 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Teague wrote:

I don't know Doc's opinion. I just know, increasingly, that Doc is actually an evil fuck.

We came to a surprisingly peaceful conclusion on the podcast.

60

(19 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Saw it. Did not like it a whole lot. Did a podcast about it! My co-host really liked it, so it's a really fun discussion.

61

(70 replies, posted in Off Topic)

avatar wrote:

So many questions:

1. Why did MM, from behind the bookshelf, beg "STAY" and then minutes later in an earlier time window, transmit the NASA coordinates that set up the events that lead to him leaving?
2. Why does the inside of the black hole look like a car wash?
3. So the black hole was just another worm hole? Is there a Hollywood black hole that is NOT a portal somewhere?
4. If it was humans from the future, why go back and alter the past when they've clearly overcome their predicament, otherwise there wouldn't be humans in the future?
5. If it was aliens, why help out in such an ambiguous way? 12 candidate systems, most not suitable.
6. Why are aliens spying on a young girl's bedroom from behind the books? Kinda creepy.
7. How can the watch Morse Code system work away from the bedroom?
8. Why does the gravitational anomaly only affect dust, drones, combine harvesters, watches, coins, etc but not life?Gravity affects ALL matter.
9.  MM wants to fling around a neutron star! What neutron star? We never see it again. And what sun is lighting this system?
10. MM is a pilot who claims he's never left that stratosphere. By the end, he's JJ Abrams-ing around a frigg'n black hole.
11. Why do the Rangers need a Saturn V to take off from Earth, but have no trouble getting off the tidal planet which is 130% of the gravity of Earth? And then it lands on another planet. And takes off again.
12. Why are all the instrument panels and controls so retro? Analogue dials, etc. Looks like 1950s technology. Yet they have AI robots, suspended animation, and are building Rama cylinders?
13. Didn't anyone think to check on Brande before Murph told MM to? Murph the old crone seemed to know Edmonds was dead. How? And why was Edmonds dead? Shouldn't he just be asleep waiting for everyone to rock up?
14. Why is the bandwidth so restricted back to earth? Does the alien ISP throttle upload?
15. Why is there a dramatic organ crescendo at the beginning when MM just looks out the window?
16. Would robots talk to each other with speech rather than a direct link? That's so Phantom Menace.
17. Almost all shots of the Ranger are from cameras seemingly attached to the fuselage, like this is a Found Footage movie. But the movie breaks this convention when it lands on the tidal planet. It's the only 'beauty shot' of the Ranger that you see.
18. Why is MM resigned that he has to wait for the engines to drain, allowing years to pass on Earth, but when the second wave comes, he suddenly remembers he can flush the engines with the cabin air?
19. So there's no other suitable planet in this galaxy? The Kepler mission found hundreds of exoplanets just in our local region of the galaxy. So our new home is in ANOTHER galaxy in a system with no sun, wedged between a neutron star and a black hole? If we don't get fried by radiation from the pulsar or burnt by the x-rays off the accretion disc, we'll be spaghettified by the tidal forces from the black hole. Real homely. What next on the new planet? They mostly come at night. Mostly.
20. Earth was a little dusty every now and then. But the brief glimpse we get of our new home is of a rocky desert planet. Does Cooper Station have a reverse gear?

Hoo boy. I'm gonna do my best here.

1) He impulsively begs "STAY" because he wants to see his daughter again. It's only once TARS shows up that he realizes he can send the data back.

2) Reminded me of like a big NYC library, lol.

3) The black hole didn't transmit him somewhere, though. Not in the same way as a wormhole, anyway. Inside, there was a pocket dimension where he could interact physically with time.

4) They put the wormhole and the black hole there because they knew that, at some point in the past, those two things were required to save humanity. It's closed-loop time.

5) I don't think it was aliens.

6) Future humans doing this is equally creepy.

7) Hmm, I hadn't considered this. Well, Cooper seemed to be able to move gravity and have it stay in place, like he did with the dust particles, so maybe he could make the sequence permanently repeat?

8) It only affected the things that Cooper specifically affected. We don't see him mess with the combine harvesters, but I think we can assume that either he had something to do with it or it was unrelated to the gravity.

9) I don't remember this bit, but the light swirling around the black hole indicates a nearby star maybe?

10) That's the POWER OF LOVE *guitar shred*

11) ...I honestly have no clue. Maybe the atmosphere was thinner??? I don't know if that would even make a difference.

12) Well, the whole theme on Earth is regression. Everyone's regressed to as much of a pre-technological existence as possible. If NASA had the budget, they probably wouldn't have had to resort to retro designs.

13) I think everyone just assumed that all the pilots were dead. And Edmonds probably crashed just like the woman on the water planet.

14) That's why we need space net neutrality, man.

15) Because HE'S THE HEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

16) So the audience can hear them.

17) It breaks so that you can more easily see what the Ranger is doing during the landing. Most of the time, the visceral experience is more important.

18) Surely he doesn't want to get rid of the cabin air unless he has to.

19) Well, the mission was just to explore what's on the other side of the wormhole, with the assumption that it was put there in order to facilitate human migration.

20) Cooper Station would have to contact Elysium to get the OK first.

62

(70 replies, posted in Off Topic)

MrDudeMan wrote:

But the stuff after the black hole just doesn't hold up, I don't think there's any possible way for it to be future humans who set up the tesseract. I think the theory that whoever sent them there just wanted them to go into the black hole is a nice one though.

How can you say with certainty what is possible and impossible for humans thousands of years from now?

63

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

paulou wrote:

Don't think I've spent ever spent so much of a runtime with a delighted, mouth agape OH AAAAHAFUHUHUCK smirk on my face before.

Since maybe Love Exposure, which is also Sono.

WHY DON'T YOU PLAY IN HELL

Same.

64

(17 replies, posted in Episodes)

Oh, that's right. My bad.

65

(18 replies, posted in Off Topic)

ShadowDuelist wrote:

I know it's not a movie, but in Avatar: The Last Airbender, in Tales of Ba Sing Se, when Iroh starts crying while singing Leaves from the Vine, I lose it every time.

I can't even think about that moment without sobbing.

66

(17 replies, posted in Episodes)

Ben Affleck wasn't even nominated for Best Director for Argo.

67

(70 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I saw it in 70mm IMAX and I had almost no issues with dialogue. I couldn't make out the exchange with TARS during the take-off, but I think that's forgivable. None of the people I went with had a problem either. Maybe the theater did something to fix it? I doubt that hundreds of other people are imagining a problem with the film. My theater probably just didn't care about Nolan's artistic vision.

68

(70 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Sam, Michael Caine's last words were just the "Do not go gentle into that good night" poem.

69

(25 replies, posted in Off Topic)

BigDamnArtist wrote:

I've literally never heard of this.

Someone give me the pitch.

Fifteen or so years ago, a high schooler was convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend, though he insisted that he had nothing to do with it. The host, Sarah Koenig, came across his case and noticed that the state's story has several troubling inconsistencies. Every episode of the show has her tracking down information and trying to put together a clearer picture of what happened. It's more about the process of solving a mystery than whether or not the mystery itself will be solved. It's really, really interesting.

70

(25 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Anyone else listen to this podcast? Just kidding, apparently the entire interent listens to this now. If you haven't, definitely check it out, it's fascinating. Just look at the top charts of whatever podcatcher you use, it's almost certainly number one.

I thought it would make for an interesting thread. I'm so fascinated by the show. What do you guys think? How do you feel about the show's in-depth exploration of process, as opposed to more standard storytelling structure? Or how the show's weekly release lends itself to the kind of assumption, judgement, and theorizing (directly or indirectly) that it seems to be warning against?

and most importantly, why did Adnan's attorney speak so loudly? I mean, jeez.

71

(25 replies, posted in Episodes)

My parents took me to see Cats Don't Dance and The Iron Giant in theaters. I'm surprised WB hasn't sent us a "thanks for trying" letter.

72

(70 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Squiggly_P wrote:

The other thing I didn't like had to do with the physics of black holes. One of the characters says that you might be able to escape a black hole's event horizon if you were to go fast enough, and that they should try to send a probe and see if they can get it back. Now it's very true that you could escape a black hole if you were going fast enough. The problem is that you'd have to be going faster than light, because light can't get past the event horizon. Theoretically, anything going fast enough to escape a black hole would have infinite mass and energy. At least, that's what my feeble mind has been able to comprehend from reading about such things on the interwebs. I may be wrong about that science part. But it bugged me. The going faster than light thing bugged me.

From the little reading I did, the fact that the black hole is supermassive (and I'm not sure they ever say that in the film, but whatever) means that it's possible to escape the event horizon. Dunno why, but I'm okay with this explanation.

73

(70 replies, posted in Off Topic)

bullet3 wrote:

I think there's a lot of cynicism and sarcasm in the movie-going community today, and for a lot of people anything remotely broad or sentimental just instantly gets rejected with an eye-roll which is unfortunate. Movies are either expected to be grim-dark cynical, or they have to do the Marvel thing and constantly wink at the audience and make fun of themselves.

For me, the sentimentality works in an optimistic sci-fi story like this, because it just harkens back to classic sci-fi literature and Twilight Zone stuff, which is full of those kind of broad emotional beats.

I'm just so glad Nolan's making a movie about real ideas and emotions here.

Inception, once you've rewatched it a few times, is such a cynical construction. It's elaborate plot mechanics around boring people doing something that doesn't matter and has no thematic relevance, all to justify action scenes that aren't even particularly exciting to watch.

Interstellar feels deeply passionate and human by comparison, and if it's occasionally awkward and blubbery about it, at least it's doing it for a good reason and out of a desire to inspire and motivate. I'll take that any day over cold, calculating nihilism.

YES to all of this.

74

(70 replies, posted in Off Topic)

copy/pasted from my Letterboxd. tl;dr - I can't believe I liked this movie so much.

It was pretty good...relatively speaking.

I think it's amusing that Christopher Nolan took the concept of love and turned it into an abstract scientific force, but the emotional aspects of the film never felt clunky to me. Maybe it was the blaring, sentimental Hans Zimmer score (which is the best score he's produced maybe ever, btw) but I'll admit to getting a little misty at the end. Nolan clearly knows how love manifests to fourth-dimensional beings, so I'm okay with his fifth-dimensional exploration of it. I mean, geez, the scene where McConaughey is watching the videos from his kids? One of the only genuinely affecting scenes in any Nolan film.

He does seem more interested in the science than anything else (much like how James Cameron only made Titanic so he could have an excuse to go down and explore the wreckage) but those concepts are fascinating enough on their own to fill in the gaps of an admittedly thin script. We know very little about these characters, but most of them are little more than conduits so the audience can see the inside of a wormhole, and I see nothing wrong with that.

And what we do see from the characters is translated through the language of quantum physics in an original way. I can think of few other sci-fi films that tie the mechanics of their world so closely to the emotions of their characters. Usually they're separate, with all elements of human expression simply pasted in to a sci-fi backdrop. Science and emotion feed into each other in Interstellar, and I can see why that fell flat for a lot of people but damn if it didn't work for me.

While walking out of the theater, one of my friends said he was surprised that I liked it. He didn't think I would, having read my other reviews. I'm right there with him. I liked this one a lot more than I thought I would.

75

(169 replies, posted in Episodes)

I don't get what there is to not like about the title. It's not going to tell us the whole plot of the movie (though I think we can make some accurate assumptions based on this). The Empire Strikes Back is a similarly vague title. We don't know any of the details, but we know that the Empire is going to strike back. Same here. We know that the Force will awaken, presumably in some of the newer characters, but everything else is a mystery.

I'm pretty neutral on the title. It's fine. Not bad.