1,201

(1,019 replies, posted in Episodes)

1,202

(13 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Wow. That's awful.

1,203

(1,019 replies, posted in Episodes)

After watching John Carter along with DIF yesterday, I made the most of my rental fee and watched it properly. I found that I liked it okay, for the most part.

Certainly, everything that the panel said was accurate. There is a hell of a lot of pipe being laid in the opening half hour, much of which is totally unnecessary. While the stuff with Bryan Cranston was funny, it's not a part of THIS story. And while the opening action on Mars sets up the stuff that we find later, it's confusing and largely unnecessary.

Instead, imagine opening with John Carter searching for his gold and getting chased by Indians into a cave. You could even involve Bryan Cranston if you like, just put it in open country. There's your opening action.

The death of the thern in the cave not only transports Carter to Mars but also causes the other therns to change their plans and give their spider-technology weapon to Sab Than. This might happen in part because of what Carter does when he initially arrives on Mars if he, say, attacks Sab Than and rescues Dejah Thoris but ends up getting thrown off the ship and lands near the thark hatchery.

Now the film proceeds as Stanton presented it but we now know the good guy, the bad guy, the princess, and the sky wizards cleanly and naturally before spending time with the tharks for a while. Carter now has a purpose: he wants to get back to help the princess but has to heal and gain allies among the tharks first.

Stanton's ending is clever, but the whole frame story is unnecessary. It's not in the book and doesn't help our understanding of the main story, altho it DOES make it more romantic. You could still use it—just cut the opening prolog to a few minutes.

Instead, the film spends several minutes with the baffling opening action, then several minutes with Carter in the city, then several minutes with Burroughs, then several minutes with the cavalry before getting Carter to the cave.

1,205

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

1,206

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I thought I'd hate Rose at first, but I absolutely loved her. And her admiration for the Doctor made me like Eccleston. I actually think he was almost perfect as the Eighth Doctor because he was no good with the humor, which made him seem all the more haunted by the Time War.

Tennant was just great, and the second series is my favorite overall. I thought I'd love Marta but her mooning over the Doctor was annoying, and the third series finale was awful. Donna was okay. I don't see what some people see in her, but she didn't really annoy me much.

Smith is just terrific, and altho I didn't like the arc in series 6, series 5 and the development of Amy and Rory has been fun. I've never really liked Rory, but the producers heaped such endless misery on him that he grew on me just for his dogged persistence and humility. I liked River a lot at first, but as they tried to untangle her story, it just fell apart, and she became more and more annoying in her smugness and selfishness.

1,207

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

1,208

(26 replies, posted in Creations)

Cool! The low-budget roots certainly show, but I like the acting, and some of the visual effects are terrific. I was a little confused by the audio, tho.

Scarecrow's voice in particular seems disconnected from the character because, I think, the actor was recorded in a studio like a podcast but Dorothy was recorded on set with a boom. That tonal difference was quite noticeable. I thought it was some kind of voiceover at first before I realized it was supposed to be coming form Scarecrow.

1,209

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

1,210

(104 replies, posted in Episodes)

1,211

(22 replies, posted in Creations)

That Instagrams my heart.

I made one into my computer wallpaper.

1,215

(3 replies, posted in Off Topic)

1,216

(3 replies, posted in Off Topic)

1,220

(60 replies, posted in Creations)

1,221

(19 replies, posted in Off Topic)

This is what the digital cinema revolution is all about. Holy cow those are some terrific short films.

I'm not sure I ever would have believed that a superhero dolly (they call them dollies, right?) could stand in for real actors in a closeup, but that Knightfall short made me believe that—under the right circumstances—it could work.

1,222

(60 replies, posted in Creations)

High Flight of Barbarella
by John Gillespie Magee, Jr. and Zarban

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
of sun-split clouds, — and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of — rocketed high and fast among
The eerie, tinny silence. Orbiting there,
I’ve sought Durand Durand, and flung
My eager craft through high halls without air....

Up there, beyond the burning blue
I’ve searched Tau Ceti's heights with easy grace.
Where never lark, or ever angel flew —
And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Unzipped my spacesuit and showed my boobs to God.

1,223

(5 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

1,224

(5 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

1,225

(5 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

Fritz Lang's M is a 1931 German expressionist thriller about a child killer case. I liked the film—it's often clever, and Peter Lorre gives a landmark performance—but it's not quite the masterpiece I'd expected.

The story is very simple: in an effort to appear effective while a child killer is on the loose, the cops squeeze the underworld so tightly that the criminals decide to track down the killer themselves. It's a very early talkie and so has almost no music and long stretches with no sound at all. It's shot beautifully (except for some very clunky dolly/boom work) and has some effective bits of humor and suspense.

But it feels like Lang wasn't sure if he was making a character piece about the murderer, a police (and criminal) procedural, or a parable about how communities deal with faceless threats.

As for character, Lorre is hardly present for the first 50 minutes, and we see almost nothing of him that isn't "the killer" (that is, we don't see him holding a job or interacting normally with people other than one scene where he buys some apples). And the famous use of "In the Hall of the Mountain King" as Lorre's whistled theme is very mannered. It's effectively spooky, but it's too complex to whistle idly.

Most of the characters aside from the killer are almost cartoons. The chief inspector is mocked by the criminals at his entrance but later appears to be strong and competent and then at times buffoonish (particularly in a bizarre up-angle shot in a chair that emphasizes his crotch).

Yet the criminals are not exactly depicted as geniuses. They are led by a dapper and rather militaristic man called the Safecracker, but most of them are pretty buffoonish themselves. And they are directly compared to the police using very arch match cuts between similar smokey meeting rooms.

As for procedure, we see a bit of police investigative techniques and the criminals' clever, more practical, and more ruthless version. And yet the police ultimately prove to be almost as effective in tracking down the right man. But undercutting the procedure is the fetishism of collections of objects (the possessions of criminals caught in a raid, the tools and silverware in a shop window, etc.). They're not tied to a collection of trophies from victims, for example, or anything else related to the murders. It seems to be a visual motif that merely decorates the procedural aspect of the film.

And as for parable, are the mob scenes of people misidentifying innocent people as the killer supposed to frighten us with the wrongness of mob rule? Because it's a mob that eventually captures the real killer. And the ambiguous ending doesn't help us decide who is right and who is wrong. To be sure, the film comments on 1930 Germany (Hitler wouldn't come to power for three more years, but the scent of fascism was surely in the air), but it doesn't seem to say anything particularly pointed. Even the scholars on the commentary remark on the film's ambiguity and inconclusiveness.

Last, the film is about 15 minutes longer than it needs to be. The killer is cornered at the 65 minute mark, when (in the Criterion release) there is still 45 minutes to go. The perverse sort of heist that follows is interesting and suspenseful but doesn't speak to character at all; then a protracted interrogation of a different criminal grinds the story to halt for nearly 15 minutes.

In all, it's a very interesting film and worth a look. It's certainly much more sophisticated than Hollywood drawing-room mysteries of the time and strongly reminiscent of Hitchcock's early work (Hitch worked in the German film industry for a while during the silent era). But it seems to be a strong character turn by Lorre wrapped in a thin plot, embellished with a thick procedural, and set in a vaguely fantastical dystopia. If that doesn't give you whiplash, you may well enjoy the ride.