726

(8 replies, posted in Off Topic)

So on a music forum I'm pretty active on, we have a thread called "Unpopular Opinions", which is pretty much exactly what the title makes it sound like. It's close to the most popular thread on the board, and leads to a lot of awesome in-depth discussion on different topics. I thought it'd be interesting to see how such a thread would go here; I imagine it'll spawn some discussions similar to those in the "Walking It Back" thread, if it's successful.

To start things off: Revenge of the Sith is actually my least favorite of the Star Wars prequels. Phantom Menace is without a doubt the worst objectively, and ROTS gets the most right, but as discussed in its WAYDM, the things it gets wrong are just insulting. In addition to the little things that show just how much they didn't care (Darth Stapler, the resolution of Artoo and Threepio's story, the pickup shot of the lightsaber, etc.), we have annoyances like:

--Padme going from at least an attempt at a strong female character to a weeping, useless mess
--a John Williams score that, while at least attempting something different, is for the most part just dull
--the absolute worst-choreographed fights in the series
--arguably the worst dialogue of all three films ("Love won't save you! Only my new powers can do that!" "Unlimited powah!" etc.)


And really, all of the positive things only make it worse, as they just emphasize the missed potential of it all.

727

(356 replies, posted in Off Topic)

From a folk opera about Orpheus, Hades and Persephone. Sinisterly catchy.

'Ere ya go, good sir.

729

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Boter wrote:
bullet3 wrote:

Bayformers 4 - I'm utterly flabbergasted by this thing, so the best I can come up with is I liked it more than the others and was laughing pretty hard throughout.

Age of Extinction definitely feels like it's trying to branch in a slightly different direction with a good number of its elements. It's refreshing.

I was dragged to see it (I didn't pay, don't worry, guys--friends with a theater employee so we get in free), and I was expecting it to be bad, but my God. I think it's the absolute worst movie I've ever seen; between the godawful humor and the rampant deus ex machinas and the laugh-out-loud moments that are sold as serious, the absolute weakest female character of all time, and sweet Jesus that fucking ending, just...ugh. Tucci was its only redeeming value. I remember thinking while watching it that I think I can understand, a little, what Trey felt watching Battleship and contemplating getting out of the industry. It's that bad.

730

(23 replies, posted in Episodes)

That intro may be the best thing I've ever seen. *insert Pirates of the Caribbean lieutenant here*

Name: Graham Warnken

Alias: Darth Praxus

Skills: writing, music (writing, performing, and editing/producing), editing, bits of Photoshop/GIMP wankery

Also interested in doing: random collabs, reading/commenting on other people's stuff

Availability: pretty much whenever until uni begins again in the fall

Contact info: gmwarnken@students.unwsp.edu

732

(127 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Cotterpin Doozer wrote:

Why would you be annoyed with Honest Trailers because of that? If you watched their video, they clearly loved Gravity. Perhaps the bigger problem is that any yahoo with an email account can write an Amazon review.

Sorry, should've used better language—more annoyed with their effect on the yahoo-ish portion of their fanbase.

733

(127 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I'm now more annoyed with Honest Trailers than I was previously; I just took a look at the Amazon reviews for Gravity and a bunch of negative ones said "Yep, the Honest Trailer pretty much summed it up." Way to really think deeply for your review, guys.

Will do so at the earliest opportunity. big_smile

735

(209 replies, posted in Creations)

Oh my God yes.

736

(127 replies, posted in Off Topic)

For what it's worth, I find Honest Trailers far less annoying than CinemaSins; they tend to focus more on actual issues than stupid stuff like continuity errors and pseudo-plot holes.

737

(60 replies, posted in Episodes)

everythingshiny wrote:

I recently read The Fault in Our Stars, which was pretty good. It kept me interested while I read it, but it's not one I would probably ever bother to go back to, and I haven't seen the film.

The biggest problem with TFIOS is how contrived the whole romance really seems. I have a feeling it's because Green couldn't help but do something with star-crossed lovers once he hit on the idea of a story about cancer sufferers. Hazel and Augustus fall in love far too quickly, and it doesn't feel natural. Green's Looking for Alaska and Paper Towns are much better in that regard--they have TFIOS's wit and enthusiasm, but deal with characters and relationships that fel far more developed and real.

738

(8 replies, posted in Episodes)

Thread bump: I tweeted this to The Boys and thought I'd post it here too if anyone else wants to take a look at it. On this episode, at least one of the guys says he'd like to see a Wicked-style take on the the movie from The Thing's perspective. Well, this wish has been granted—Peter Watts' short story "The Things" was nominated for a Hugo Award and is bloody fantastic—both intriguing and chilling.

739

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Trey wrote:

Yeah, it was interesting to read a review of Untouchables that didn't mention the obvious Potemkin homage.  Or at least obvious to film school kidz like me.  smile   Maybe "The Odessa Steps" sequence is no longer required viewing in film schools, but it sure used to be.

I'm still scrambling to catch up with all the films on the "required-to-watch" list, hence my ignorance. Shall have to add that one to the pile. smile

740

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

http://moviepostersale.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/the-untouchables-movie-poster-uk-e1334132342378.jpg

This was a weird one.

It's an odd mix of 20s period piece and pure 80s film. Ennio Morricone's score goes from bombastic strings and drumbeat to undated orchestral to 80s cheese again at a rather alarming rate, action sequences are shot with arch camera angles and gratuitous slow-motion, and so on and so forth. One of the advantages of shooting a period piece is that they tend to age better than other films of the same era, but The Untouchables is most definitely an 80s film.

In terms of structure, the film works pretty well until the third act, which is overlong and has, for all intents and purposes, two climaxes. On a script level, Mamet's dialogue has a glaze of artificiality, but in most cases the performances are good enough to pull it off. De Niro is clearly enjoying himself as Al Capone, and Connery is as solid as ever as Malone—as with many actors of his stature, it can be hard to tell whether Connery is phoning a performance in or genuinely trying, and I don't believe he deserved the Oscar for this particular performance, but he's fun to watch and has some great moments (the infamous "bring a knife to a gunfight" scene in particular). The glaring exception to the good performers is Kevin Costner. I've always found Costner wooden, and in this movie in particular he comes off as stiff and unnatural. Part of this is the character he's plying—Ness is intended to be uncomfortable at first—but the other part is Costner, I feel, not quite managing to nail the performance.

Tone is also a problem. Some scenes fall victim to heavy narm. The worst offender in this regard is Charles Martin Smith's awkward accountant character becoming an unstoppable shooting machine in the midst of a liquor bust—the scene is laughable in its over-the-top nature. Others are legitimately suspenseful—the POV one-shot in which a hitman enters Malone's apartment manages to be quite tense. And others ride the line between these two extremes. In one scene, the Untouchables are attempting to grab Capone's bookkeeper from a railway station, and a massive shootout ensues. Bullets fly, men fall in bloody heaps, all while an adorable baby is careening down a massive flight of stairs in her stroller. And it's entirely in slow motion. The scene is one of the worst offenders of 80s camera work, and gratuitously putting the baby in danger, in addition to coming dangerously close to narm, violates one of Roger Ebert's pet peeves (he considered it the height of cheating to grab the audience's attention by endangering an infant). And for all that, the scene still somehow manages to work as a tense action setpiece. It's slightly baffling, in all honesty.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes, if nothing else it's an engaging viewing experience. Do I think it deserves to be a classic? Not in particular. I will say a WAYDM on it would be quite interesting.

Marathon Man or Misery? I've been hankering for another Goldman.

So this is a hell of a lot of pouring one's own concrete and doesn't actually work, but Tor put out an interesting retcon that fixes some of Khan's character in STID—Harrison is only claiming to be Khan and is in fact just another member of the Botany Bay's crew. He claims he's Khan because he knows that'll get him far more respect and buy him time. Like I said, there's absolutely no justification for that theory, but I find it intriguing.

743

(60 replies, posted in Episodes)

Cotterpin Doozer wrote:
Isaac wrote:

But as a story consumed by young children, I don't like major parts of the messaging.  The takeaway of Mulan can easily be read as "normally men are soldiers, but Mulan was an exception."  The world of Mulan is one where all soldiers are men, for a while one woman was a very good soldier, but at the end we return to the status quo of all soldiers are men.

I totally respect where you're coming from, Isaac, and I've been sitting at my keyboard for several minutes now, trying to figure out exactly how I should reply. I'm probably feeling a little defensive of my second favorite Disney movie because I repeatedly have to defend my favorite Disney movie, The Little Mermaid, from accusations that it's anti-feminist.

I'd be very curious to hear that defense, actually, because while I don't know if "anti-feminist" is exactly the right word, it's most definitely a problematic film.

What do you guys think Tyrion's fate will be? I can't see GRRM killing him, but I can't think of an appropriate fate for him because I'm blinded by my desire to make him happy as he's my favorite character.

745

(262 replies, posted in Episodes)

I think I've mentioned this a while back: Her and Lost in Translation would make a really interesting double feature.

746

(356 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I desperately wish this had been included in the film somehow.

http://media.tumblr.com/cb8b5421ae988a08612bb52b7f7b1d18/tumblr_inline_n6mbwhTJkd1rnw7mz.jpg
http://media.tumblr.com/53a49b31ffb12b444e7119fdceb1d780/tumblr_inline_n6mbwswzj51rnw7mz.jpg
http://media.tumblr.com/75f2a4628cab5e8ead6651aa26d8bec0/tumblr_inline_n6mbx2dCAE1rnw7mz.jpg

Well, shit.

Martin's editor hints at possible eighth book in the series. "I remember when he called me, years and years back, to confess that his little trilogy was…well…no longer a trilogy. He predicted four books. I said Seven Books for Seven Kingdoms. Then he said five books. I said Seven Books for Seven Kingdoms. Then he went to six. I said… Well, you get it. Finally, we were on the same page. Seven Books for Seven Kingdoms. Good. Only, as I recently learned while editing The World of Ice and Fire (another awesome thing you must buy when it comes out!), there are really technically eight kingdoms, all having to do with who has annexed what when Aegon the Conqueror landed in Westeros. So, maybe eight books for Seven Kingdoms would be okay."

While I think that Tor is perhaps reading too much into her statement, I did find it interesting that when Martin realized that the series was going to be longer than a trilogy, it was his editor who kept telling him he had to have seven books for seven kingdoms rather than the five he'd planned. So maybe we could've avoided the entirety of AFFC/ADWD if it hadn't been for her. tongue

749

(25 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

redxavier wrote:

I saw this today and really liked it. The one main flaw is the whole 'future Pryde must keep mind phase link thingy active for entire time'. Given that the events in '73 occur over multiple days, are we to infer then that Kitty Pryde spent several days sitting motionless over Wolverine and didn't eat, shit or sleep?

Something something mutant powers.

http://marieclaire.media.ipcdigital.co.uk/11116/00007d951/b2bd_orh100000w440/maleficent-poster.jpg

*sigh* This movie bummed me out way more than I expected it to.

I was expecting it to be a perfectly forgettable, mediocre flick, something that I wouldn't remember anything about within the next week. However, there are glimmers in Maleficent—glimmers of what could have been a truly awesome movie. Instead we received an incredibly broken movie with some awesome bits, and that's disappointing.

A brief plot summary, as the film diverges a fair bit from Sleeping Beauty for obvious reasons: when the movie opens, there is a state of enmity between the corrupt and greedy realm of the humans and the lush, magical Moors, the realm of the fairies. The young fairy Maleficent rules over the Moors and is happy to avoid the humans—until one of them, Stefan, wanders into her domain. Rather than punishing him, Maleficent becomes Stefan's friend, and eventually they fall in love. However, Stefan jilts her, returning to the realm of the humans to seek greater power. After the humans mount a failed raid on the Moors and their king promises his crown to the man who can kill Maleficent, Stefan seeks her out, but cannot quite bear to kill her; rather, he drugs her and slices off her wings, bringing them to the king as "proof" that he has slain his former lover. Bent on revenge, Maleficent erects a massive wall of thorns around her domain and places the famous curse on Stefan's daughter, Aurora, who is then shepherded away by a trio of fairies who watch over her. Unbeknownst to them, however, is the fact that Maleficent, along with her shape-shifting crow servant Diaval, is also keeping a close eye on the child...

The good first. Jolie's performance works very well three quarters of the time. Her scenery-chewing villainy is a delight to watch—she plays her haughty, at times genuinely malevolent role perfectly—but also does more subtle work—a standout example of this kind of acting occurs in the moments she awakens from her drugged sleep and realizes her wings are gone; her grieved wailing is utterly believable and moving. The best scenes of the film are the ones that focus on this grief and pain spiraling into an over-the-top, maniacal villain; Jolie is truly menacing, and the atmosphere is marvelously dark.

However...

About a quarter of her performance doesn't quite come off. This is less Jolie's fault and more that the material she is working with in these instances is full-on narm, very difficult for anyone to play well. The film's other performances are nothing special at best (though Sam Riley's Diaval is likable enough), and at worst are actively annoying—the trio of fairy "aunts" who raise Aurora are the Jar-Jar Binks of this movie, attempted comic relief that is smotheringly unfunny and idiotic (and, half the time, chipmunk-sized with voices to match). The film does the job of making Maleficent someone we're interested in, but forgets to do this with anyone else.

The movie is almost certainly one of those copy/paste jobs made up of multiple drafts, as evidenced in its two biggest problems: its rapidly oscillating tone and its inconsistent characterizations. To address the tone first: nearly no scene connects to the other in terms of atmosphere and mood. We whiplash from truly dark material to slapstick comedy on a scene-to-scene basis, cut from men being bludgeoned to death by magical beings to incompetent fairy aunts throwing flour at one another and quarreling in a wildly over-the-top manner. Part of this, of course, is due to the fact that it's almost impossible to make a truly dark Disney movie—the closest comparison I can make is The Hunchback of Notre Dame, which could have been the mature masterwork of the Renaissance era if it weren't for studio meddling inserting stupid comic relief—but another part, I think, comes from different drafts being cobbled together. It's a huge hindrance to the film, and hamstrings its attempts at creating a unified world and mood.

Consistent characters are the film's other massive problem. Maleficent goes from a perfectly nice person, though a person who is ready to defend her home, to a power-hungry tyrant within the course of a single scene; bitterness and a desire for revenge are a half-reason for this transition, but not nearly an adequate one, not at the speed at which it occurs. Following this, Maleficent's character cannot make up her mind as to whether she is evil or not. She places the curse of a sleep like death upon Aurora, but immediately brings her food when her fairy aunts cannot figure out how to feed her, saves her life from afar when she almost tumbles off a cliff, and so on and so forth, before the two finally meet and form a special bond. This in between Maleficent's minions bludgeoning dozens of humans to death when they attempt to enter her domain. The film cannot decide if it wants Maleficent to be a truly evil, vengeful person or a softie at heart, and thus depending on the scene she is one or both, rather than gradually transitioning from one to the other. The same applies to Stefan—he goes from a decidedly gray person who at least has a solid motivation for what he's doing and genuinely loves his wife and daughter to a raving lunatic, every so often easing back to the former before jerking back to the latter.

Other quibbles: the CGI in this film is some of the most obnoxiously over-the-top, cartoony stuff I've seen in a long time. This wouldn't be quite the problem that it is if it weren't for the fact that the film's sets, particularly the castle, are clearly sets, and are shot almost entirely differently than its CG creations are. It's another instance of vicious whiplash between two visions for the film. The action choreography is sloppy and unrealistic (though the dragon at the film's end is a nice bit of work—despite the fact that it's not even Maleficent, which I'm not sure how I feel about). The ending twist—the true love needed to awaken Aurora is not that of Prince Philip, but Maleficent herself—would be more interesting if it hadn't been done in Frozen just a few months ago. And the film's final scene is insultingly on-the-nose, spelling out the moral in ham-fisted narration rather than just trusting its audience.

I didn't expect to write a review of the film when I had seen it. I didn't expect to care enough to do so. But there are moments that are genuinely good, that truly work, and it's the fact that they're buried under so much disappointment that bothers me. I actually hope that the FIYH crew cares enough about the film to do a commentary, because I'd love to hear their thoughts on how it could be fixed. As is, Maleficent is broken, but some of those broken pieces are what they were meant to be, and that's far more frustrating than the mediocrity I was expecting.