1,376

(28 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

One of the things I've heard repeatedly is that the plot of the two sequels put together is so convoluted as to be nigh-unfollowable. Truth be told … I kinda liked that about the movies.

...

But I kinda dug, just for the change of pace, the way everybody in those movies wanted something different, and was willing to throw their ostensible allies under the bus to get it. It amused me for it to be so.

Yeah, except that their motivations in the third movie often made no sense, violated their established characters, and the rules were clearly just made up as they went along.

I would have no problem with constant backstabbing and everyone stepping on each others' faces to get what they want. I have no problem with convoluted when it's done well -- in which case it's called "intricate."

The problem was that none of it made any sense and none of the loose ends from DMC were tied up satisfactorily in AWE, they either ignored them or did away with them offscreen (e.g. the Kraken) as if to say, "Forget all that, false start, here's what we're actually talking about."

It's fine when characters all want something different from each other. It's not fine when characters want something different from themselves without explaining how they arrived at this new goal.

1,377

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

Joe wrote:

I recently saw a Korean film called Old Boy. It's dark, complex and fucked up in all the best ways. I would enjoy a commentary of Old Boy.

Like most Asian films, it's dark and mysterious and enjoyable until they actually explain the mystery at the end, and you just go "...wat? Really? Okay, but...I mean...why?"

I thought the movie was cool and particularly the bit with the hammer and the hallway, but by no means was I mindblown like people said I should be. I had essentially the same reaction to it that I did to BATTLE ROYALE -- that it wasn't nearly as fucked-up as I'd heard.

1,378

(28 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Yes, Davy Jones' locker sequence was from the third one, and no, it wasn't cool. It was the ending of SECRET WINDOW all over again. Branco's methodology of telling the films apart is fairly accurate.

1,379

(28 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Cloverfield - like

Titanic - like

Avatar - may look more kindly upon in later, post-hype years

Dune - haven't seen

Gladiator - liked at the time, been 10 years though

AI - like, but rewatching it last year for the ill-fated DIF commentary, less so than I used to

Alien 3 - didn't this one get a good showing of support on the show?

Dead Man's Chest and At World's End - DMC had potential, AWE was a fucking mess.

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

Or is it okay to like things that most people agree are bad and still have some basic concept of artistic taste?

As long as you can understand and articulate WHY they're universally reviled, I think you're alright. There's such a thing as a guilty pleasure.

1,380

(48 replies, posted in Episodes)

Since we (I) make a brief reference to Power Rangers in this episode, I thought it would be interesting to note that That Guy With The Glasses has a video series (still in-progress) about the History of Power Rangers.

For those too young/old to have been part of the Power Rangers craze, you might find it interesting to see what us oldtimers/whippersnappers thought was so danged cool about it. He does a good job of hitting the major events (including many I'd forgotten) and summarizing the mythology and the overarching ideas. I personally stopped watching the show as of Turbo, though it seems I missed out on some good stuff with "in Space."

The other reason I bring it up, though, is that looking at the clips he uses, it seems that as the shows moved away from reusing Japanese sentai footage and started producing the action content locally, it transitioned from karate to kung fu. And it started with Turbo. Apparently I outgrew it at just the wrong moment.

1,381

(62 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Invid wrote:

I agree, although I don't think there's anything wrong with that. If you honestly can't see the 3D picture everyone else can see, you don't see it and will write such.

Yeah, but what he wrote wasn't "I don't see what everyone else sees," he wrote "I don't see it and anyone who says he does is a lying wronghead."

1,382

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

I liked THE FALL a lot, especially visually.

The most interesting thing about THE FALL, to me, was the disconnect between the story each character thought they were telling. The stuntman performs in Westerns. He's telling her a Western story, as far as he knows. But when he introduces the character of The Indian, she pictures someone from India, which completely alters the flavor and understanding of the story in her mind. The tension -- and harmony -- between the story he's telling her, and the story she's telling herself, is really entertaining to watch.

1,383

(62 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Yeah, see, he says things like this:

As a courtly and well-mannered gentleman said to me as we both exited the screening earlier in the week, "It was kind of hard to follow, wasn't it Mr. Simon?"

Indeed it was.

No it wasn't! It's not hard to follow at all! It's not convoluted and it's completely linear, just with some parts of it taking place simultaneously and in a longer timespan -- it's like a fractal structure. And then he says weird shit like this:

And I like the movie a lot when, as Page puts it, it suspends the laws of time and space — when, for instance, a locomotive suddenly and for no reason starts barreling through city streets and, especially, when a city folds in on itself and turns a city block into a kind of giant oreo cookie, without the cream filling in the middle.

WTF? Why an Oreo? The defining aspect of Oreos is the cream filling and they aren't folded over, they're two separate biscuits held together with the filling.

And if he thinks there is "no reason" for the freight train, he was not paying attention even a little to the Cobb/Mal backstory.

YOU ARE SAYING WRONG THINGS MR. CRITIC.

Although I do agree that stuff like that should have happened occasionally for no reason, making dreams an unpredictable and dangerous business, there was a very specific reason that they did happen in the movie as made.

This smacks of a guy who didn't get the movie and is trying to say that it's because there's nothing to get. And to an extent, he's right. There's nothing that complex about it (other than the question of how much of it is a meta-dream), no secret you need to unpack a la THE FOUNTAIN. It's pretty straightforward, if intricately woven. An admitted inability to follow it means that he somehow just didn't understand the material at a fundamental level.

1,384

(62 replies, posted in Off Topic)

paulou wrote:

Can't wait to read this movie's ASC article. Wouldn't be surprised if they used a mix of hip harnesses with those uncomfortable chest harnesses you can't breathe in just to keep it even less obvious.

At one point I thought they might have dressed the inside of a vomit comet to look like the hallway and just started doing nose dives for some of the fighting shots. The proportions could have worked.

I considered that, but I think what they actually did was hang the hallway vertically and had the two performers dangling head-down, with the camera pointing up the shaft.

I also agree with the critic you quoted, and honestly critics in general who say there's no emotional engagement in the film, despite it being a character's internal journey. It's not difficult to get me choked up by a story, at least a little. There are episodes of Futurama that make me misty for Pete's sake. And don't get me started on TOY STORY 3. But watching INCEPTION, despite being entertained and thrilled and in awe, I never once felt moved by it. Which is okay. Still the best (live action) movie this year, I think.

1,385

(62 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Oh, and I determined that the zero G stuff IS wires, but it's really smart wire work that they shot in smart ways to hide the wire-ness. Specifically, they used the fact that they already had the hotel built on a gimbal and would shoot some shots sideways or upside down, sometimes with JG-L hanging upside-down or on his back but with the camera oriented to look right-side up, so instead of getting the look where the wires are lifting his hips up in every shot, sometimes his hips are being pulled down or to the side or straight back. So even though it's wires it never feels like wires because it's not all the same thing. Very, very smart.

1,386

(62 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I'm going to have to say yes, he is. All the negative reviews I've seen are people who didn't get the movie. And I don't say that as a blanket "If you don't like it you don't get it" dismissal, but because if you have seen the movie and then you read these reviews, they demonstrate a lack of understanding of the film, saying things that are flatly incorrect.

In that vein I need to make a correction. Brian (my roommate) points out that Ellen Page was not in control of the dream levels once they entered them. She designed them and then taught them to the ones who would be the dreamers. In order, it was Yusuf, Arthur, and Eames, and they did make minor changes (raising the bridge, the paradox staircase, and adding the "shortcut) when push came to shove. So I was incorrect to argue that Ellen Page specifically should have done it (according to the film's rules) but my point is the same, and it's basically what paulou said. Have shit get full-on buckwild at some point. Make the rules of the film different to accommodate this, if need be. Otherwise you might as well have them going into a computer rather than a shared dream.

Also, with time dilation being 20 times normal, 10 seconds of falling = 3 minutes in hotel = 60 minutes in the snow level, which Ellen Page says but I misheard (thought she said 16). So the snow level did conceivably have enough time, but Joseph Gordon-Levitt still didn't.

1,387

(21 replies, posted in Off Topic)

http://blog.nola.com/mikescott/2009/04/large_khaaan.jpg

COOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNN!

1,388

(62 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Astroninja Studios wrote:

I agree with most of what Mike said, but I'm ok with Ellen Page's character.  In the scene with her and Dobbs where she's moving shit around, he made it clear (to me at least) that what she can do...ANYBODY can do in the dream scape.

Well then have everyone doing it.

Astroninja Studios wrote:

He just made it clear that she shouldn't because the more you do that, the more you make the subconscious attack you.  Remember as soon as she started moving shit, his subconscious became more vicious with her.  Additionally since they establish Cillian's character as having stronger defenses than most, they would retaliate harder if they started bending walls and shit.

But Fischer's subconscious was already trying as hard as it could to kill the intruders. All bets were off from the word go. They're not going to get any more bloodthirsty than "completely." Bend those walls!

1,389

(62 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Dear Reader: you can assume that this thread contains spoilers. If you haven't seen INCEPTION, slap yourself in the face and slink off in shame.

Anyway, I thought it was phenomenal.

As I said on Twitter, I don't think it achieves what we would call a perfect movie in the sense that it does not follow through on all the promises it makes or leverage all the ideas it introduces.

Most egregious, to me, is that Ellen Page is set up to be someone who can alter and warp the world of the dream at will, even mid-dream. Once the shit starts hitting the fan, that should have been happening constantly in her efforts to save them from Fischer's homicidal subconscious. Obviously having a character in unrestricted God Mode would be kind of lame, so you'd have to come up with ways to restrict her. Her alterations would have to have unintended consequences that ultimately made things worse. Any number of possibilities here.

On a related note, the dream world was surprisingly literal and consistent. Dreams are weird. That shit with Paris folding over itself? Stuff like that should be happening on its own, all the time, not just because Ellen Page is a kooky wunderkind. It should be the job of the architects to try and keep the world coherent against the wild imaginations of the dreamers' subconsciouses. More like ETERNAL SUNSHINE, less like THE MATRIX.

While on the subject, as a fight scene guy, the brawl in the rotating hotel was A-MAZ-ING. That's exactly the kind of shit I would have wanted to have in the alternate Matrix Reloaded I pitched, with Neo in the "haunted house." In fact, INCEPTION in many ways is what the MATRIX sequels should have been.

The time dilation was not used to its full potential, nor was it consistent. Probably half an hour of the movie takes place while the van is falling, which is only supposed to give JG-L ~3 minutes to do what he's got to do, and the guys on the snow level ~20.

There is no way JG-L did all that in three minutes, and I'm hard-pressed to believe the snow level took only twenty. But more than that, we were told they'd be in the respective dream states for 1 week, 6 months, and 10 years. They were only in each one for a couple hours, max. Think of the storytelling, and character, potential of having ten years to do the job; to get to know the mark, befriend him, manipulate him -- not to mention the characters' relationships with each other. Some of them might start to have second thoughts, alliances forged and broken, etc. Though this kind of story would probably need way more than a movie -- a miniseries, probably, if not a full-season TV run. Be a pretty thrilling season of TV though.

Last thing, the explicit statement "As we go deeper into [Fischer], we also go deeper into [Cobb]." I didn't see that, at all. Other than the incursion of the freight train, we don't get a lot of "Cobb's obsession is altering the dream uncontrollably." I mean, the second level down is a hotel. You have the characters diving deeper into the subconscious, into a hotel, and you don't have the fictitious hotel suddenly cross with the hotel where Mal killed herself? Come on. All we ever have is Cobb occasionally spotting his kids playing with their backs to him. Add more specific elements to the backstory and have those elements start to clash more and more with the mission. The train was a great start, but MOAR.

Having said all that, I loved the film. It's smart, the pacing is sharp, I never felt the length or like there was anything that could have been cut out -- if anything, like I've been saying, I wanted another hour at least! This is the only film so far this year I've wanted to see twice in theatres, and is easily the best film of the year. It's firing on all cylinders. Nolan is a strong director, and this movie is clearly the culmination of his career so far -- this movie brings his MEMENTO sensibilities and his BATMAN sensibilities together in a big way.

The missed opportunities, while not small nitpicks, don't destroy the movie for me by any means. It's awesome and thrilling and gorgeously done. They just prevent the movie from being a pants-shittingly perfect BEST MOVIE EVAR.

IMO. It's still fucking good. Especially for a "summer movie." Give me more "summer movies" like this, flaws and all, and I'll be satisfied for a good long while. Still certainly destined for classic-hood, and cements Nolan's name in the same place as Pixar: whatever it is, I'll see it just because his name's on it, and he'll have to fuck up real bad (i.e. make THE VILLAGE, LADY IN THE WATER, and THE HAPPENING back-to-back) to knock himself off that pedestal. He's now pretty high on my list of favorite directors.

Also, the FX were brilliant (I honestly don't know how they did the zero-G stuff -- if it's wires, it's the best wire work I think I've ever seen), the music did its Zimmer-y thing, and I haven't seen such an appropriate use of slow motion in a long time.

1,390

(49 replies, posted in Episodes)

The use of the REQUIEM theme in the TWO TOWERS trailer caused me to sex in my pants when the trailer was first released. I hadn't seen REQUIEM yet though, so I didn't know the tune.

I remember being appalled when the trailer for CASPER used "What's This?" from NIGHTMARE.

1,391

(49 replies, posted in Episodes)

Phi wrote:

Thank you Down in Front! Well, mostly Dorkman. Pending a rewatching, I no longer bleh The Fountain.

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/879/zoidberghooray.gif

Hooray, I'm helping!

1,392

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

Jackson got a lot of flack in LOTR for spending a lot of time on characters (Frodo in particular) looking emotional in close-up. I don't think that's a problem in LOTR, but I think that's definitely a problem with KONG.

When the ape gets tranked, we spend forever watching in slow motion as he loses consciousness, and the guy who shot him lowers the gun, and Ann looks at him like NOOOOO, and the guy finishes lowering the gun, and Kong is like WHHYYYYY and Ann is like NOOOOO and Kong is like WHHYYYYY and some other character is like WHOOOAAAA and Kong is like WHYYYYY and Ann is like NOOOOO and in a wide shot they're both like WHYYYYNOOOOO...

I mean, there was a lot of that already (see: Boromir's death), but it's like Jackson thought THAT was the reason LOTR made money, so he did it MORE.

You could tighten up the flick so much just by taking the maudlin down to 10. Not to mention cutting out the Jamie Bell character and his mentor, who had half an arc and no payoff.

And just get them to the damn island sooner.

I liked the film but there was a lot of fat to trim. I still haven't gotten around to watching the extended edition and it's not high on my list.

1,393

(49 replies, posted in Episodes)

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

TNow, after having pondered it for a few days (as this movie always makes me do) I think I prefer to imagine the future storyline as the road-not-travelled, the logical extension of Tommy's obsession, which is averted at the very end.

I can't defend that interpretation on logical or storytelling grounds, but I think it just makes me happier.

Eh, fuck it. That one works for me too.

1,394

(49 replies, posted in Episodes)

Phi wrote:

My problem with the movie comes down to a lack of symmetry between the three stories. Any one of them is fine, but they don't add up together. Even if we narrow the story down to boy+girl

I think you've narrowed it down wrong. It's not about Tom's relationship with Izzi. It's about Tom's relationship with death.

Thinking about it more, I've come over to Stephen's opinion that the future story literally happens. Which was hard to accept, since I think it being metaphorical is more poetic, but the literal interpretation makes more sense given the information.

The very last thing Izzi writes in her book is "All he could see was death." And this is literally all Thomas can see for the next 500 years. Her admonition to "finish it" refers to the story she started writing and left to him. But he can't finish it, because he's stuck on that line himself. The story stops several times at that point, and can go no further, because he doesn't know how. When he finally comes to terms with death, he's able to finish the story.

I still don't know how he changes the past. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he just finally understands that that's what he should have done. Or maybe it's a metaphor for dying and going to heaven. In death he is "with" Izzi again, so maybe that's what that's supposed to be. He spent 500 years focusing on defeating death, turning his back on Izzi even though he believes it's for her, and he finally makes the right choice and follows her instead.

1,395

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

KONG 05 was a bangin 2-hour movie in a flabby 3 hour body.

Funny thing is that I initially defended Jackson's choice to make a 3 hour film when the reports first came out. I can totally see how you can make a powerful and exciting 3 hour KING KONG.

Jackson didn't make it, as it turned out, but I think it could be done.

1,396

(49 replies, posted in Episodes)

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

It's not a big deal, but I was a little surprised (since y'all were in this sort of mood) that nobody mentioned the flaming sword bit. The opening title card with the quote from Genesis describes God placing a flaming sword in the Garden of Eden to protect the tree of life … and the Mayan who stabs Tomas wields a literal flaming sword. It's a little on the nose as symbols go, but I liked the blending of Mayan and Christian myth.

I was going to say something about that, but with Stephen doing what he was doing, it felt a little clownshoes to interrupt and go "Hey, obvious correlation is obvious."

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

And talking of myth, this one's a bit harder for me to put into words, and may be nonsense. At the end of the film, the Mayan priest-whoever-guy (with the flaming sword) appears to see Tom the astronaut in place of Tomas the conquistador. He refers to him as First Father. I'm not all up on my Mayan cosmology, but presumably First Father was, well, the first father, maybe the Mayan equivalent of Adam or something, but at the very least a figure believed to be central to the creation of the world.

Izzi expounds the mythology of First Father pretty explicitly, in the museum just before her seizure.

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

And Tom, the astronaut, appears to die when Xibalba explodes. And Tom, the astronaut, is the Mayan First Father. Which means by dying — finally, after what surely must have been thousands of years at least — Tom is responsible for creating the world.

If we accept that the Mayan story is Izzi's book, it's only a symbolic thing. Although as we discussed, the possible theories of what's real and what isn't start to unravel pretty fast in the last act.

beldar wrote:

About iron from the stars, i think there was plenty here already before life began. If you mean when the planet was forming then yeah, it came from the sun.

My understanding is that any element other than H or He came from the stars, specifically dying ones like Xibalba, not active ones like our sun. But yeah, I meant when the planet was forming.

1,397

(31 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I don't understand how it's possible not to hate THE VILLAGE. It teased a great but false premise, and gave us a stupider one in its place -- and one which, like his high point SIXTH SENSE, he ripped off from a kid's story. Maybe I wouldn't have such a problem with it if the idea it had advertised with hadn't been so fucking awesome and now wasted forever.

SIGNS was alright but got self-destructively stupid at the end. LADY IN THE WATER was unforgivably dull and self-indulgent.

A douchebag film reviewer who's always wrong about everything? Really?

A writer whose currently-misunderstood work will actually become the salvation of all mankind, played by Shyamalan himself? REALLY?

I'm sorry, no. Fuck you Shyamalan.

As I say, I have no particular quarrel with UNBREAKABLE -- it's not as good as SIXTH SENSE but it didn't make me fear for the worst the way SIGNS started to. But it's not enough to exonerate him from the rest of this. He's done.

1,398

(48 replies, posted in Episodes)

What the fuck.

I think Harrell's accounts have been hacked. He's talking straight-up insanity lately.

SYNECDOCHE is a pile of self-indulgent shit with no redeeming qualities. I became physically angry after watching that series of images and sounds.

1,399

(31 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Sometimes you remind me that I really don't know you at all.

I'm sorry, but when you factor in THE VILLAGE, LADY IN THE WATER, and THE HAPPENING, not even counting LAST AIRBENDER, no movie is that good.

Certainly not UNBREAKABLE, which was tolerably good when it seemed like M. Night might be going somewhere with a sequel and was just smarter than the rest of us, but now seems like a bullet dodged at best.

He's not just making "bad movies." He's making "cinematic abortions."

1,400

(31 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Then I guess it may just be a disconnect from reality. He claims a good 20 reporters told him THE VILLAGE was one of their favorite films of all time. That is not true. I don't have to be there to know it's untrue. That is as untrue as if he claimed 20 reporters flew into the room with supernatural powers. It is a violation of the laws of the universe. He may not be lying, if he truly believes it -- but if he truly believes it, he's flat-out delusional.

This isn't totally out of the question, though. I won't name names, but I worked with one filmmaker who will tell you that at the premiere of one of his films, the audience was hooting and hollering with excitement, really connecting with the material, and when the credits rolled they brought the house down with applause.

I was at that premiere, and that is not what happened. The film was bad. The audience was mostly silent, with the occasional incredulous laugh or jeer at a particularly clumsy moment. And when the credits rolled, most of the audience walked out, with only the small contingent of cast and crew near the front giving themselves a loud pat on the back.

So when he tells me about another premiere or screening that got a huge and overwhelming positive response, I can guess what really happened.

And I don't think the guy is lying. I think he genuinely remembers things going the way he tells it. But he, too, finds himself baffled because he believes that he does good work that people love and yet he can't get a break. And the problem is that the premise "I do good work that people love" is false and he is psychologically incapable of seeing it.

If that's the case with MNS, then the answer to why he started strong would have to be just pure, dumb fucking luck.