1,001

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

Dorkman wrote:

So, I put it on my list. But, really, how many times in a commentary can we say "This is really scary, the way she runs and he keeps on coming"?

Well, much like with Blair Witch, you can talk more generally about the genre it created, other examples of the genre that work well, point out tropes that were created, etc., as well as the directorial techniques at play to keep said tension up.

1,002

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

Invid wrote:
dodgson wrote:

Why you don't like this masterpiece and all-around beloved horror classic, Teague?

There is nothing wrong with not liking a film considered a classic. I mean, hell, it's a low budget film in a genre he may not like that has been ripped off to death. It's also slow, very slow. Either you go with it, or you don't. Hell, maybe the problem is he went from The Thing to Halloween, and not the other way around.

Ya, I guess it's kinda like watching Dark Knight or Inception first, and then watching "Following" and being like "man this is so slow and lame". For something made with basically no money or reputation, that went on to basically create a genre and an entire new series of tropes within that genre, it's pretty damned impressive. I can see the smart framing and directorial choices that he would go on to use in movies that had actual budgets, so I can certainly agree it's well directed, but I still wouldn't want to sit through it again.

1,003

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

I've heard the original Woman in Black from 1989 is terrifying, haven't seen it, though the whole thing is on youtube

1,004

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

Ya, In the Mouth of Madness is awesome, especially the totally badass opening theme:

I disagree about it being the last great Carpenter film though. I love the hell out of Escape from LA, and Vampires is pretty damn good too (slow middle act not-withstanding). Ghosts of Mars is not a good movie, but even that has some fun parts (and Jason Statham gets decapitated).

The short answer is that the movie mostly plays it straight and has Dredd as the good guy like you said, but occasionally hints at how fucked up what they're doing is. There's a bit early on where he calls in for cleanup after a bunch of civilians have been killed as a result of him pursuing a bad guy, and there's janitors casually mopping up the corpses and a PA announcement saying the plaza will reopen in 10 minutes or something. Very Robocop. Not enough of that kind of stuff there for my taste, so it's definitely not a great movie, but it is there.

Anderson is mostly committed to becoming a judge but she sees and does some things that make her think twice about it.

On the subject of blowing their load too early, that's one of the reasons the original Mission Impossible is the best of the series. The whole movie has a great sense of escalation, from the lower key opening mission that goes bad, to the awesome CIA break-in in the middle, and climaxes with the train set-piece which is awesome and the best sequence out of any of the movies.

The 3rd movie peaks at the middle bridge scene and sucks after that. The 4th movie peaks at the Burj Khalifa, and ends weak.

I actually think MI-2 ends pretty strong (I'm in the rare camp that prefers 2 to 3) with some nice shootouts and a great motorcycle chase, but unfortunately there's literally over an hour of complete nothingness and boredom in the middle of that movie.

1,007

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

Please don't do the fucking remake, original or go home

1,008

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

Teague wrote:

HALLOWEEN
A bit obvious, but such a fantastically well-made

Iiiiiiiiiiiiiii'm gonna stop you right there. Say what? I saw Halloween for the first time last year, and I was blown away by how awful it was.

Whatchu talkin' bout, Willis?

Ya, this is the rare movie I totally agree with Teague on, it REALLLLY does not hold up in the modern context, unlike something like Psycho. Acting is pretty shit, there's barely anything going on, ya it set the standard for the genre, but viewed outside of a historical context, I don't get it. And this is as a huge Carpenter fan.

That one would actually really be worth doing if one of the DIF guys is willing to defend it.

Same with Prince of Darkness, I don't get that movie at all, and have a feeling Teague would hate it, but if Brian or Trey can explain what the hell it's about, that would be an interesting commentary.

Watched The Master in 70mm. Calling it right now that this is winning Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor for Phoenix and Hoffman. Amy Adams also has a good shot at winning Best Supporting Actress.

It's also by far the most gorgeous thing I've seen all year, you really haven't seen anything like this in years, it's got such a unique and appealing look visually.

The movie is totally engrossing all the way through, has some of the absolute best scenes of the whole year, but really peters out at the end and doesn't seem to pay off on any of the story arcs, or any themes really.

I'm sure smarter folk than I will analyze it to death and maybe can explain it to me later, but it really ends up feeling like the movie doesn't know what it wants to say, unless that's the point.

Still absolutely worth seeing though, just for plain originality. I haven't seen anything remotely like this before, the closest comparison I can think of is Eyes Wide Shut. I have a feeling it will resonate with me for a long time to come.

1,010

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

Oh absolutely, you guys have got to do The Haunting. Just the opening minutes are creepy as all hell:

But that's the point, the world has gone to shit to such an extent that technology is basically frozen at where it would be 5 or 10 years from now. The government has some fancier toys to play with, but for the average person it's no different from living in the slums today.

I also think you're coming at this wrong when it comes to the Dredd character. He's not the protagonist here, he's not supposed to have an arc. The whole point of the Dredd character is that he's totally immovable, a living incarnation of the messed up justice system. Anderson is the one who goes through a character arc, she starts out eager to "make it" as a judge, and comes out questioning the way the system is run, after she sees the consequences of some of the people she's killed. The movie smartly keeps these things in the background and doesn't try to get in your face about it. It makes it easy to fall into rooting for Dredd and supporting the justice system, but the wrongs of the system are subtly seen falling in along the periphery and aren't shied away from (I mean for christ-sake, he uses white-phosphorous to burn a bunch of people alive). I do wish it was a bit more explicit a la Robocop, but it's definitely there.

I'm gonna go ahead and very much disagree with you Doc Sub.

Dredd is a very solid genre movie, I can see why some people might not dig it, but not for the reasons you say, it's VASTLY better and more imaginative than Surrogates.

I actually think the screenplay is very strong, a stream-lined minimalist, day-in-the-life storyline, with characters that we can root for. Especially early-on, I was getting a really strong Robocop vibe, with how the movie is casually making fun of the fucked up world and the totalitarian state running it. I would say it doesn't push the satire hard enough, to where some people could read it as a facist power fantasy, but I do believe the film-makers and the movie do not come out supporting Dredd's actions.

Regarding world-building, that's where I really, really disagree. I think this has some of the best sci-fi world-building I've seen in a long damned time. It feels believable in that "Children of Men" way, where the technology is not stupidly advanced, you see people still taking pictures with cell-phone cameras. This future has a unique feel to it. I love the look of the city, the way the mega-blocks are designed and laid out. The way they casually mention that Judges are only able to respond to 6% of the crime out there.

Even something that would normally be just stupid and gratouitous, the ultra-slo-mo shots, actually work in context of the story. You see how depressing life is for people in the world and it makes complete sense why they would take a drug like this to help escape reality.

You wanted the movie to explore the world outside the blocks more, but I don't feel like that's a fair criticism, this is explicitly a lower-budget, focused movie based around one location.

If the movie has flaws, it's that there are some pacing issues (unlike The Raid, which is ultimately a more satisfying action film than this), and the actual gun-fights are just not very exciting to watch.
Still damned good, really wish there was more stuff like this getting made.

1,013

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

Psycho would be a good choice since it fits the theme, is extremely influential, has a pretty interesting movie structure, and for god's sake guys, how have you not done a Hitchcock film yet?!

I also really feel like you guys have gotta do another Carpenter commentary, and with so much of his stuff being horror I think now would be as good a time as any. Like I said, They Live would be great because of the abundant social commentary on display. If you wanted to go more pure horror In The Mouth of Madness would be a good choice.

I hadn't considered Prince of Darkness......if you think you can explain what the fuck is going on in that movie you guys are welcome to go for it.

Someone mentioned Scream, I think I would almost rather you guys do that then Cabin in the Woods, because in many ways Scream is doing the exact same thing as Cabin in the Woods, except it got there 20 years earlier, and actually works as a scary horror film. Also you've kinda already done a Cabin in the Woods discussion.

Also, I second Blair Witch Project. If you're going to have a discussion about found footage horror, it makes a lot of sense to do the movie that started the trend. If you wanted to do a modern found-footage, I think Rec is a far more effective and interesting example than Paranormal Activity, both in terms of concept and execution.

1,014

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

Horror movie suggestions that haven't been done yet?

They Live is only tangentially horror, but it fits and you guys really oughta do it already,

In the Mouth of Madness,

Vampires,

The Descent (the best horror film of the last 10 years),

Rec (2nd best horror film of the last 10 years),

The Exorcist,

House (the crazy japanese one):

1,015

(11 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Kickboxer:

Especially this scene:

1,016

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Ya all the people bitching about him killing people last episode should quiet down now, it's clearly intentional and the show-runners are acknowledging that he's starting to cross the line.

1,017

(12 replies, posted in Off Topic)

If that was the case I would almost say bravo, but the truth is much more sad. This guy has a history of vehement anti-muslim/gays/abortion activism, and he's come out and said that he hoped this movie would convince muslims to switch religions. He even wanted to originally call it "Innocence of Osama" in hopes that extremists would accidentally view it and be "convinced" of the error of their religion, then was crushed when literally no-one showed up to the premiere. He really believed this was a powerful and factual documentary that would change people's minds.

1,018

(12 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Yep, looks like it was a bunch of radical christians. Argh, I hate the world.
I mean look at this shit, it's major rioting in like 10 major cities: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/mea … ?hpt=hp_t1

That is a really alarming amount of super-easily offended/violent people.

1,019

(12 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Honestly, while the guy is an irresponsible/racist asshole for producing it (especially given his sincere hatred of muslims), a darker part of me wishes critical videos like that would start coming out all the time and force the fanatics to get used to it and maybe modernize a bit and handle criticism like normal people.

I'd be lying if I said Islamic extremism doesn't terrify me somewhat. I'm no fan of religion in general, but all that "every group has it's extremists" stuff is extremely naive. It's kind of objectively clear that in general islam is a more radical religion than the other major players (see treatment of women, gays, honor killings, etc), and that the extremists within the religion are far more prevalent and radical than in others (see stoning/burning of anyone criticizing their prophet), especially abroad.
Christian extremists will picket at soldier's funerals, and there'll be some lone crazies that might resort to physical violence. In the middle east there'll be a mob that will stone you to death.

In many ways it's like they're at where Christianity was 400 years ago, before the enlightenment and softening of doctrine.
Obviously this is a very broad generalization, I personally have several wonderful, intelligent muslim friends. This is mainly a problem overseas, but it's hard to deny that what we're seeing in the middle east is extremely troubling.

I think it's especially disturbing because even living in extremely secular places on the West Coast, this is one of the few ways you can still feel religion encroaching on your personal freedoms. If one of us made a stupid satirical cartoon about the Prophet, we'd possibly have to go into hiding and watch our backs, and could potentially endanger the lives of US citizens on the other side of the globe. That to me is unacceptable, and a real slippery slope that threatens everything our democracy stands for.

That being said, seeing Libyans protesting against the attack and apologizing for their radical countrymen gives me hope that with greater economic stability, many of these countries will modernize and the ratio of moderates/extremists will increase greatly, as it has been doing in the US/UK for decades.

1,020

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Ya, I mean don't get me wrong, it's cool to have someone who's able to reason out of situations and outsmart his enemies instead of fighting them, but like you've said, given some of his enemies, I think it's wrong to stick so closely to that rule-book. Too many times in this show the enemies could've easily been defeated half-way through an episode if the doctor just pulled a gun and shot them in the face.

1,021

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I think this honestly would've made a much better first episode to the season, just a great light-hearted adventure, straight-forward pretty self-contained storyline, great effects and lots of action.

I can't believe people are whining about the doctor killing the guy at the end, that was one of the best things about it. If I have a problem with Doctor Who in general, it's that I wish the Doctor was more of a han-solo character and killed bad guys more often. This insistence on him being some pure "no-violence" thing just means the writers have to constantly come up with convoluted ways of him getting out of situations without resorting to violence. You're a frickin immortal space-alien badass with crazy technology and a time-travel machine, how about you grab a space-laser every once-in-awhile and save yourself a lot of trouble by shooting the bad-guy in the face while he's monologuing.

I agree entirely, although I would modify "pays off every setup" to include the possibility for explicitly subverting expectations. As a recent example since I just watched it, the new Jason Statham action movie Safe builds up an antagonist character with people saying "he's the only one I know that's a better fighter than Statham's character", and the movie climaxes with a dramatic standoff between Statham and this antagonist. It's setting up the classic climatic martial arts fight, and the characters lower their guns and prepare to have an honorable fight, only for a secondary character to shoot the bad-guy in the leg, followed by Statham picking up his gun and shooting the bad-guy in the face 10 times while he's on the ground.

By your existing definition, this would be a mis-step that disqualifies it from perfect movie status (which I'm not saying it is), because it's not following through on something it has been setting up throughout the movie, even though it's an intentional choice to mess with the audience, and in a way is a payoff by not being a payoff.

Hanna was my #3 film of 2011, love everything about it. I would disagree about it being like a Bourne movie. It is in plot, but the style is completely different, a cross between Run Lola Run and a Grimm fairy-tale.
I love the kind of oddball approach to the film, where the spy storyline takes a backseat for 30 minutes so we can just spend time with this family and Hanna going to parties and stuff. The movie is actually pretty crazy dark and violent, I'm surprised it got a PG-13. And yes, the one-take fight sequence is legendary.

Also, Hanna's got hands down the best soundtrack of 2011, every track is amazing, even if you don't watch the movie I recommend seeking it out.

Sidenote: This ended up more ranty than I'd expected, but you've touched a nerve so I'm posting it anyway.

I could not more vehemently disagree with you if I tried. There is nothing of merit in this Conan reboot, nothing whatsoever. It is the Battleship/Transformers-2 of R-rated fantasy movies. The only way you could think this is a successful love-letter to B fantasy movies is if you've never seen any B fantasy movies. Conan the Barbarian and Conan the Destroyer shit all over this thing in every regard.

Conan’s journey is supposed to feel like a mythical, emotional journey. In this version, while the beginning is the strongest stuff, the father dying and village destruction still never “feels” the way it should in this story. I think a big problem is the music, which is garbage, and does nothing at all to give this movie any weight. But even that aside, Nispel seems to not even try to give the movie any sense of a journey. How about some shots of young Conan, standing tall overlooking the remains of his village, wind blowing across his face. Make us feel the weight of this moment. This should be a Luke Skywalker in beginning of A New Hope moment, but no, Nispel just handles everything like a plot-point and skips right over it.

I think I could forgive sloppy action scenes (I would say that the original Conan isn’t exactly a masterstroke of fight choreography, and there’s actually not a ton of action in it), if the movie had any sense of direction, or felt like it cared at all or had a pulse. This movie feels dead, completely dead the entire way through, like nobody involved cares.

Honestly I haven’t felt this pissed walking out of a movie since Terminator Salvation, which is a good comparison to this movie.

Just the look of the movie is ass-ugly, all murky shades of yellow and brown, compare that with the clean figure against a blue sky from the first movie: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SbP_IL0U5TU/TCpqmmdYvLI/AAAAAAAAAn8/GW4QtMYn9Sw/s1600/conan+the+barbarian.jpeg

And this is not me comparing it to LOTR, which isn't really the same genre, this is me comparing it to the original Conan flicks, or even stuff like Dragon-Slayer and Army of Darkness. Gore on screen does not automatically make a movie good, just look at Pathfinder, the last movie Nispel did.

1,025

(1,649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

The only way that movie works is if it's intended as satire, a la "Torque"