Movie Discussion

[Magonosaurus]

Seeing this video has made me somewhat reconsider Jurassic World, though it doesn't improve the experience I had with it. It's a shame that a film with surprisingly well thought-out themes and narrative had such... generic execution.

The themes were pretty clear to me when I first saw it, which was why I gave it 2.5/5 instead of a lower score during my first viewing. Looking back now, they weren't really themes that were so intelligent or clever that it's hard to decipher from the movie. It's clearly inserted by someone trying to be clever, but clearly wasn't.

It's easy to subvert something; it's hard to actually say something meaningful out of the subversion. Saying, "Hurr duhh the first Jurassic Park was clearly the best of the franchise" wasn't something revolutionary or thought-provoking, nor was "Hollywood movies are just lazy cash-ins."

Also, nothing is more insulting than having a movie tell you that you've wasted your time and money watching yet another Hollywood's lazy attempt to steal your money, especially when all I could think about wasn't its supposedly subversive message, but why the fuck that lady was running from a T-Rex on high heels.

It's almost as dumb as Spec Ops: The Line's message, telling its gamers that FPS games are just platforms for gamers to feel like a hero about killing people... while being a game about killing people. It's fucking stupid.

On that same note, stop trying to use "deconstruction" as a means to make your movie seem like it's trying to say something clever either, Hollywood. Especially you, Hack Snyder. You're not being smart by being edgy. You're about as smart as Mark Millar and his more appalling works like The Unfunnies, bearing the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

Actual filmmaking that has actually meaningful things to say like the works of Stanley Kubrick takes years of efforts, if not a whole decade. It takes time to pour that blood and sweat into crafting individual shots 127 times just to get the right shot that defines your vision. That's why making actually good movies people will actually remember for decades to come is so freaking hard.

 

[BrainBlow]

Spoiler: BB talkin abot gaems n medie

It's almost as dumb as Spec Ops: The Line's message, telling its gamers that FPS games are just platforms for gamers to feel like a hero about killing people... while being a game about killing people. It's fucking stupid.

It's not about "FPS games", it's about the "modern military shooter" oversaturation. Yes it's a game about killing people, but the intent and thematics in it is completely different from in almost all other, as yathzee would put it, spunkgargleweewee games. Holdings its shooter theme against it is like saying greek tragedy is not a valid genre.
The killing in spec ops is inherently about how it doesn't make you a hero, so there's nothing hypocritical about it criticizing a genre that glorifies you playing superpowers crushing hilariously underpowered enemies, typically portrayed as non-white and especially non-american. It's a shooter game, but its main appeal is the story, and the gameplay even feeds into it even if it does seem clunky. There's nothing hypocritical with a greek tragedy usually being a spin on the conventions of the greek epics. Similar themes and tropes, vastly different intent and purpose.
The problem is you can't really advertise that sort of story without robbing it of that first impact. No story remains unspoiled forever, but the first impressions are still important for how it gets discussed and remembered. And it would be quite the stance for someone to say a genre product can't also savagely criticize the genre while also being a product people consume. By that logic Watchmen couldn't exist. Or more relevant to spec ops, books like Heart of Darkness couldn't exist, a book also accused of doing the same thing as the genre it attacked. That book has flaws, but its flaw was not how it took the fun out of the at the time quite popular "civilized white man doing adventure among savage primitives" genre(or whatever the name for it was).
Similarly it is not stupid that spec ops made people feel no heroic catharsis by the end. If people reject that because they want more of the genre then I guess that's that, but for many including me, it had the effect of making them never play games with these themes again. Not because spec ops was bad, but because it made me reevaluate my own values and motivations for having engaged with the genre in the first place.
If anything the game only became more relevant, almost immediately. Medal of Honor Warfighter came out just a few months later, and it was basically everything spec ops condemned, right down to the enemy using rocks to fight your futuristic murder robots, because they're actually that pathetically outmatched, and the genre kept getting more pathetic to try to justify itself. Like that one Black ops game where the enemy (which I think was "all of south america" or some shit) is bad because they're trying to take away your doomsday weapon you had pointed at them. Only you get to have that!
I really had to ask myself how me engaging with the genre for power fantasy was actually any less insidious than when people read stories about noble white men thwarting the evil schemes of buck-toothed rapist Chinese men in the late 19th century onward that helped foster the public mindset that made imperialism seem like a kindness to those oppressed by it.

(oh and of movie relevance, American Sniper came out just a few years later, where a real-life murderous, racist sociopath is posthumously presented as this solemn hero and war is baed u guise *vomit*)

 

[Magonosaurus]

Spoiler: BB talkin abot gaems n medie

It's not about "FPS games", it's about the "modern military shooter" oversaturation. Yes it's a game about killing people, but the intent and thematics in it is completely different from in almost all other, as yathzee would put it, spunkgargleweewee games. Holdings its shooter theme against it is like saying greek tragedy is not a valid genre.
The killing in spec ops is inherently about how it doesn't make you a hero, so there's nothing hypocritical about it criticizing a genre that glorifies you playing superpowers crushing hilariously underpowered enemies, typically portrayed as non-white and especially non-american. It's a shooter game, but its main appeal is the story, and the gameplay even feeds into it even if it does seem clunky. There's nothing hypocritical with a greek tragedy usually being a spin on the conventions of the greek epics. Similar themes and tropes, vastly different intent and purpose.
The problem is you can't really advertise that sort of story without robbing it of that first impact. No story remains unspoiled forever, but the first impressions are still important for how it gets discussed and remembered. And it would be quite the stance for someone to say a genre product can't also savagely criticize the genre while also being a product people consume. By that logic Watchmen couldn't exist. Or more relevant to spec ops, books like Heart of Darkness couldn't exist, a book also accused of doing the same thing as the genre it attacked. That book has flaws, but its flaw was not how it took the fun out of the at the time quite popular "civilized white man doing adventure among savage primitives" genre(or whatever the name for it was).
Similarly it is not stupid that spec ops made people feel no heroic catharsis by the end. If people reject that because they want more of the genre then I guess that's that, but for many including me, it had the effect of making them never play games with these themes again. Not because spec ops was bad, but because it made me reevaluate my own values and motivations for having engaged with the genre in the first place.
If anything the game only became more relevant, almost immediately. Medal of Honor Warfighter came out just a few months later, and it was basically everything spec ops condemned, right down to the enemy using rocks to fight your futuristic murder robots, because they're actually that pathetically outmatched, and the genre kept getting more pathetic to try to justify itself. Like that one Black ops game where the enemy (which I think was "all of south america" or some shit) is bad because they're trying to take away your doomsday weapon you had pointed at them. Only you get to have that!
I really had to ask myself how me engaging with the genre for power fantasy was actually any less insidious than when people read stories about noble white men thwarting the evil schemes of buck-toothed rapist Chinese men in the late 19th century onward that helped foster the public mindset that made imperialism seem like a kindness to those oppressed by it.

(oh and of movie relevance, American Sniper came out just a few years later, where a real-life murderous, racist sociopath is posthumously presented as this solemn hero and war is baed u guise *vomit*)

I mean, it's entertainment, dude. Maybe take a chill pill or something. I'm all for forcing your political message, but making people pay good money just so you could criticize them is hypocritical no matter how you spin it.

If people want to play FPS games where they kill innocent people just for some power fantasy trip, that's their prerogative. But to go on and say that people are somehow morally or ethically wrong for having a little escapism, I just think it's a little arrogant and self-righteous. It's the same train of thought about how comics beget violence from young children, or on the same note, how violent video games bring about violent behaviors. It's one of the oldest and most cliched sophistries of all time.

 

[ZetsubouKaiji]

I don't think challenging the audience or asking them to reflect on their preconceived notions is a bad thing at all. Both versions of Funny Games do the exact same thing by starting out as a typical home invasion movie then making the audience complicit in the violence. It doesn't make all violence in movies to all be bad, but it does call for people to question what they are consuming and why. I still shamelessly consume slasher movies after watching Funny Games, but I do appreciate what Michael Haneke was trying to get across. It made me more harsh on senseless cruelty in films especially ones trying to be taken seriously.

Fair enough if that's not what you want from media, but just calling it bad outright because you didn't like the message is closed minded. There's all kinds of media for all kinds of folks. Subversive and media that deconstruct genres can teach an audience a lot about their own tastes even if those things aren't always flattering.

I still can't believe Medal of Honor: Warfighter is the real title of a real game that's not a parody.

Anyways

I watched The Love Witch

It's an over long and tedious throwback to the sexploitation films of the 70s. It's fun to see that style for about 20 minutes, but the film drags on for nearly 2 hours. After the initial setup the movie becomes a repetitive softcore porn with lots of boring T&A on display. The film has some light feminist themes that don't go anywhere. The acting is appropriately exaggerated to match the style of the genre and the time period. The filming style matches that of the era, but it gets spoiled when character pull out cell phones or you see modern cars in the background.

Overall, a boring flick not worth watching unless you're hard up to see some ass. 4 out of 10

 

[BrainBlow]

I mean, it's entertainment, dude. Maybe take a chill pill or something.

Maybe rein in the unnecessary personal attack and realize that all media since the beginning of storytelling has always been used to tell the consumer something, be that a grand moral or just the passive reinforcement/glorification or rejection of societal norms. We do not and have never existed independent from the power social norms has over us, and media is a huge part of it right down to the ancient tales around the campfire, especially when forces with vested interests about how you should perceive the world involve themselves, as we'll get to later.

I'm all for forcing your political message,

This is a bizarre mindset I see pop up a lot on certain corners of the internet, and when distilled to its components it basically just means:
- Things I like: Apolitical.
- Things I don't like: Political.
How are modern military shooters and movies like American Sniper not "forcing politics"? Do you actually believe they're apolitical and make no statements about what is or isn't correct to the audience? How does that work?

It's the same train of thought about how comics beget violence from young children, or on the same note, how violent video games bring about violent behaviors. It's one of the oldest and most cliched sophistries of all time.

Media doesn't "make people violent", but it absolutely can help foster norms that makes violence or other negatives more acceptable, such as towards specific groups. Unless you're going to come with the huge take that propaganda has no effect on people, and apparently the United States' military is wasting its resources when it subsidizes blockbuster films in exchange for favorable portrayals of American armed forces and foreign politics. Or as Elmer Davis the head of the Office of War Information said:

The easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most people's minds is to let it go through the medium of an entertainment picture when they do not realize they're being propagandized

The united states government has used Hollywood as its propaganda arm since WW2, and that never stopped and has had a considerable effect on culture. Practically every foreign villain stereotype that has ever originated in Hollywood appeared because of this influence, like the "emotionless Russian" trope. Or remember that time Rambo glorified the Afghan Mujaheddin because they fought the soviets? That movie sure is one people have avoided since 2001, huh?
Oh and by the way, one of the writers on COD in 2014 got called up to washington as a military adviser because they liked the games so much for how realistic they seemed.
Just because media doesn't make people violent doesn't mean it has no influence on our attitudes and subconscious assumptions about people and the world. Trying to equate those is fallacious. Media literally colors our perception of the world, and many things we take for granted morally are only "obvious" because we grew up being bashed over the head by media about it.
A piece of media doesn't need to bring out the podium and graphs to tell you something about the world, and thinking it has to in order to qualify as "political" is the sort of thing that creates bizarre attitudes like the idea of Call of Duty being apolitical.

 

[Magonosaurus]

Maybe rein in the unnecessary personal attack

I mean, if you're so sensitive that you take it as a personal attack, then we have nothing to discuss about, because any thing I say will just come off as bearing some sort of personal agenda against you instead of being, you know, a frivolous remark casually made for the sake of lightening the heavy discussion. If you think that's a personal attack, you're gonna have a rough time on the Internet.

 

[BrainBlow]

I mean, if you're so sensitive that you take it as a personal attack, then we have nothing to discuss about, because any thing I say will just come off as bearing some sort of personal agenda against you instead of being, you know, a frivolous remark casually made for the sake of lightening the heavy discussion. If you think that's a personal attack, you're gonna have a rough time on the Internet.

You're gonna have a rough time in real life if you think you can arbitrate how others take the things you say to them, especially strangers. And in no way is "take a chill pill" not an insult, especially when paired with another statement that tells me that you think the entire topic is completely trivial and not even worth discussion(that's called dismissal). It's at best is the sort of passive-aggressive insult I expect from a moody teenager who has held off cleaning their room too long. As if being rude online is a virtue, and I should be thankful you're not even worse. Wait, weren't you literally the person complaining about other people being arrogant and self-righteous?
Don't open a conversation if you're going to get snippy when someone does something other than just reaffirm what you already believed. That's what actually being "sensitive" looks like, and it's and annoying waste of time when people are trying to have actual discussions only get passive-aggressive, childish quips in return.

 

[Gens]

I don't think challenging the audience or asking them to reflect on their preconceived notions is a bad thing at all. Both versions of Funny Games do the exact same thing by starting out as a typical home invasion movie then making the audience complicit in the violence. It doesn't make all violence in movies to all be bad, but it does call for people to question what they are consuming and why. I still shamelessly consume slasher movies after watching Funny Games, but I do appreciate what Michael Haneke was trying to get across. It made me more harsh on senseless cruelty in films especially ones trying to be taken seriously.

Fair enough if that's not what you want from media, but just calling it bad outright because you didn't like the message is closed minded. There's all kinds of media for all kinds of folks. Subversive and media that deconstruct genres can teach an audience a lot about their own tastes even if those things aren't always flattering.

I still can't believe Medal of Honor: Warfighter is the real title of a real game that's not a parody.

Funny games is a movie I'd never watch again to be honest, but I do appreciate media like that sometimes. Auteurs sometimes don't even make movies that the audience is necessarily going to enjoy as a piece of entertainment and solely do it for themselves and nothing but themselves. But hell, I can derive some enjoyment from that too.

 

[Magonosaurus]

You're gonna have a rough time in real life if you think you can arbitrate how others take the things you say to them, especially strangers. And in no way is "take a chill pill" not an insult, especially when paired with another statement that tells me that you think the entire topic is completely trivial and not even worth discussion(that's called dismissal). It's at best is the sort of passive-aggressive insult I expect from a moody teenager who has held off cleaning their room too long. As if being rude online is a virtue, and I should be thankful you're not even worse. Wait, weren't you literally the person complaining about other people being arrogant and self-righteous?
Don't open a conversation if you're going to get snippy when someone does something other than just reaffirm what you already believed. That's what actually being "sensitive" looks like, and it's and annoying waste of time when people are trying to have actual discussions only get passive-aggressive, childish quips in return.

Alright, stay triggered and git mad, boi. lol Whatever, blocked. I don't have the time or the inclination to talk to someone so hopping mad with steam over a dumb remark over the Internet. It's not worth it, and you're not worth it.

I'd reiterate my initial advice: take a chill pill.

 

[Gens]

I've been going through my cult movie list and today I watched The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension.

I honestly hated this movie and just don't get what the appeal of this is. So disappointed right now.

 

[Thrawn]

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

By that I mean the superior Director's Cut, which adds a wopping 45+ minutes of content, plot-wise, murder-wise, development wise, and holy sub-plots Batman! It's like... holy shit, did they really cut out all this good plot shit? You know why Balain is reluctant to do some plot-relevant thing, why he's doing what he does, the actual bloody child of the Sibylla, like the bloody fricking child. Adds so much context to her decisions. Pretty sure it added even more to the fighting, probably to some later stuff that's spoiler-worthy and generally political intriguey, which is absolutely massive. And what do you get? A kickass war political historical drama. About the crusades, about fighting for the holy land, where neither side is portrayed as savage or as a true villain. The respect each has for some of their adversaries, callbacks to phrases and differentiating yourself from the previous actions of your enemy. And whilst it's a foregone conclusion Crusade-wise, it's no less an engrossing, if monumental undertaking in making and watching it.

But seriously, 3 hour director's cut or don't bother at all.

8.6/10, but I love my Crusade movies.

The Sand Pebbles (1966)

I've seen parts of the first 3rd, "HOLMAN COME DOWN" twice, and now the back 2/3 of the movie. It's some kinda... romance, war, racial tension movie. It's also as long as Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut, which is seriously long. It reminds me of those character pieces, or them war-time dramas that aren't always set in this time period. Or location. This one's in China instead of 'Nam but deals with some commies, some tragedy, action, more tensions between the Chinese and Americans and it was actually pretty good. It was nominated for a lot of awards but lost all of them at the Academy, including Best Picture to A Burns for All Seasons. I don't know if I can even recommend it because of it's runtime, general interest for it's time period/subject matter... but it does remind me of those massive epics of the ye olde dayes. Glad I finally watched about 75% of it.

7.5/10

 

[Schizm]

I've been going through my cult movie list and today I watched The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension.

I honestly hated this movie and just don't get what the appeal of this is. So disappointed right now.

Haha same. I bought it on DVD back then because of the name and hated it too, ended up gifting it to a friend. Its biggest sin is not using Christopher Lloyd and John Lithgow to full effect (who admittedly weren't that known then) but I guess as one of the first geek culture movies it has its place.

Peter Weller is even more of a damn robot in this than in RoboCop and most other actors are all pretty wooden across the board so that didn't help in the slightest. That confusing love story where the sister of Banzai's dead lover wants to commit suicide at one of his concerts or something, it just sucked. I also didn't really appreciate the aspect of them fooling us into Buckaroo Banzai being a successful brand and how all this is supposedly part of a much bigger story with comic books and shit. That ending with the stupid walk and whistle tune...

The 50s sci-fi parody aspect didn't help things either. Heck, not even Jeff Goldblum as a cowboy could save this.

 

[Ebonyslayer]

Was looking up horror movies to watch since Cinemassacre is giving a promo code for Shutter.com. Was curious about the Nicholas Cage/Wicker Man version and looked up a video for the best scenes.

Still have plans to watch the original Wicker Man.

 

[Thrawn]

Was looking up horror movies to watch since Cinemassacre is giving a promo code for Shutter.com. Was curious about the Nicholas Cage/Wicker Man version and looked up a video for the best scenes.

Still have plans to watch the original Wicker Man.

You mean Best Wicker Man. Does the original have the main character punch women in the face, sometimes in a bear costume? Or karate kick women into walls? Or ham it up like only Nicolas Cage can without winking at the camera?

 

[Vega]

Okay so, my mom enjoyed Hereditary (though it took her a while to get into it) and she seems interested in watching Midsommar but I'm not sure which version she should watch since I have both the director's cut and theatrical. If I remember right Midsommar took nearly an hour to really pick up (in the director's cut version at least) so which version do you guys think she should watch? My mom did say that if there's material in the director's cut that helps her understand what's going on better/adds more context (my short term memory made me forget exactly how she worded it and I only just now talked to her about this), she'd be okay with watching that version.

 

[ZetsubouKaiji]

You mean Best Wicker Man. Does the original have the main character punch women in the face, sometimes in a bear costume? Or karate kick women into walls? Or ham it up like only Nicolas Cage can without winking at the camera?

People get so caught up in all Nick Cage memes that they forget the remake is just a dull slog. It's mostly weird in a not very interesting way with like ten minutes of Nick Cage being crazy and entertaining. For most of the movie he acts like he's in a drug stupor. The best way to experience the remake is to watch the best of videos on Youtube, then forget the rest exists.

The original on the other hand is a rare daylight horror classic. It's slow paced, but has atmosphere. It has a killer performance from Christopher Lee as the kooky cult leader. The film has an actual message about faith.

Okay so, my mom enjoyed Hereditary (though it took her a while to get into it) and she seems interested in watching Midsommar but I'm not sure which version she should watch since I have both the director's cut and theatrical. If I remember right Midsommar took nearly an hour to really pick up (in the director's cut version at least) so which version do you guys think she should watch? My mom did say that if there's material in the director's cut that helps her understand what's going on better/adds more context (my short term memory made me forget exactly how she worded it and I only just now talked to her about this), she'd be okay with watching that version.

Director's cut all the way. It's the closest to what Ari Aster's original vision for the film and characters was. The length might be intimidating, but the added scene do add to both the characters and the plot.

 

[Gens]

People get so caught up in all Nick Cage memes that they forget the remake is just a dull slog. It's mostly weird in a not very interesting way with like ten minutes of Nick Cage being crazy and entertaining. For most of the movie he acts like he's in a drug stupor. The best way to experience the remake is to watch the best of videos on Youtube, then forget the rest exists.

The original on the other hand is a rare daylight horror classic. It's slow paced, but has atmosphere. It has a killer performance from Christopher Lee as the kooky cult leader. The film has an actual message about faith.

Everyone knows you watch either Vampire's Kiss or Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans for nicholas cageness anyway.

 

[ZetsubouKaiji]

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans

I still say the iguanas were the unsung heroes of that movie. Leave it to Werner Herzog to throw in some nature porn in a film about a corrupt cop taking place in a city.

Also, the movie is drugs.

 

[Schizm]

Everyone knows you watch either Vampire's Kiss or Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans for nicholas cageness anyway.

Or just watch a compilation video of his scenes in Deadfall. VIVE LA FUCKING FRANCE, MAN!!

 

[Thrawn]

All kinds of Murican movies to celebrate Memorial Day, where they stick it to them Nazis. Like The Great Escape, a timeless classic of escaping from the clutches of a Nazi Prison Camp, with some infamous stunts and the motorcycle, let alone the entire escape and lead-up to it with one all-star cast. And that tune, that goes- you know how it is. Do-do. Do-dooooo-dodo etc etc. Totally recommend it. And The Dirty Dozen, a timeless classic of training a group of convicts, including rapists and murders, arming them and setting them loose on the Nazis, including civilians! Maybe not timeless. Or classic. Maybe classic but certainly with it's scruples and maybe not entirely Memorial Day with what may or may not go against some conventions. But it does have one hell of a cast.

People get so caught up in all Nick Cage memes that they forget the remake is just a dull slog. It's mostly weird in a not very interesting way with like ten minutes of Nick Cage being crazy and entertaining. For most of the movie he acts like he's in a drug stupor. The best way to experience the remake is to watch the best of videos on Youtube, then forget the rest exists.

To quote Roger Ebert, "Cage is a good actor in good movies, and an almost indispensable actor in bad ones.", which is to say that he is the only good thing about it, in all the good scenes, created excellent memes, and saves you time that you would have otherwise spent watching a shite movie. Nicolas Cage!

Or just watch a compilation video of his scenes in Deadfall. VIVE LA FUCKING FRANCE, MAN!!

I know that movie has Charlie Sheen as a pool hustler with a single silver fingernail named Fats in a smoking suit, but Nicolas Cage playing a coked up Nicolas Cage is Cage at his Cagiest.