|
Liam Emsa posted:I'm glad I didn't see this ridiculous trailer, because it gives away the entire plot: Goddamn, you're not kidding. That statement is made about a lot of trailers, but it really does give away the entire movie.
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
But it doesn't give it away; it gives the viewer a very different story to the one we get. That either makes it a really terrible trailer, or a brilliant one, and I'm inclined toward the latter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
thehomemaster posted:But it doesn't give it away; it gives the viewer a very different story to the one we get. I dunno, the viral teaser made me want to see the movie. That trailer probably would've made me skip it. VVVVVV I am now officially loving this thread BeanpolePeckerwood fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
thehomemaster posted:
If Lou Bloom represents neoliberalism, then Bill Paxton's character Joe represents American unionism and its decline. Joe Loder embodies every negative stereotype that young American workers have against unions, whether they're true or not. They're greedy dinosaurs, they're outdated, they make entry impossible, they're lazy and have no passion for their work. But we never see much of Joe when he isn't working. He could as big a sleaze as Leo or he could be a decent guy working all night at a lovely job he hates in order to put his kids through college. It doesn't matter to Lou, all he sees is a once respected institution that has become dispassionate and obsolete, a hindrance to his ambitions. A blue collar mediocrity who hates achievement and the American Dream. Later on Joe Loder offers Lou a pretty sweet partnership deal, with the kind of hallmarks that collective labour was founded on. More money for everybody, more productivity, worker solidarity and all that. I'd like to assume that it was a genuine offer, even if was motivated by fear of competition. But its too late now. Lou now knows that he can have the whole lot while controlling his under-paid and later unpaid workforce with a mix of platitudes and fear. So he tries to murder Joe with the guy's own means of production, leaving him alive but crippled and voiceless. goodog fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 11:53
|
|
|
The Time Dissolver posted:"Lou Bloom" to me strongly suggested "Leo Bloom", Gene Wilder's/Matthew Broderick's character from The Producers. That feels meaningful but it could be just me. Google tells me Leo Bloom is also the name of the protagonist of Ulysses, but I haven't read that. Yeah, there we go. thehomemaster posted:But it doesn't give it away; it gives the viewer a very different story to the one we get. It tells a bullshit story. I think I love the trailer now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
goodog posted:If Lou Bloom represents neoliberalism, then Bill Paxton's character Joe represents American unionism and its decline. Joe Loder embodies every negative stereotype that young American workers have against unions, whether they're true or not. They're greedy dinosaurs, they're outdated, they make entry impossible, they're lazy and have no passion for their work. But we never see much of Joe when he isn't working. He could as big a sleaze as Leo or he could be a decent guy working all night at a lovely job he hates in order to put his kids through college. It doesn't matter to Lou, all he sees is a once respected institution that has become dispassionate and obsolete, a hindrance to his ambitions. A blue collar mediocrity who hates achievement and the American Dream. That's actually a better reading of Joe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
So I'm watching this for the first time right now while eating a sandwich from Which Wich, right down the street from my apartment. I get to the part where Lou Bloom is getting gas for his new Challenger at the Shell Station, and what do I see in the background but the exact Which Wich location I got my sandwich from like half an hour ago. The sandwich I'm eating right now while I'm watching the movie .  I mean, living in Socal means I'm used to seeing a lot of local places in films, but it was just really crazy seeing the exact sandwich place that I just got the sandwich I'm eating while watching the movie, in the movie. It was kind of weird and surreal. Pretty perfect timing. Anyway, just wanted to share this bit of wacko coincidence. Back to the movie. It's pretty great so far. A whole lot of the movie was filmed in my neighborhood, so it's pretty fun watching just for that factor alone. Damo fucked around with this message at 09:57 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Just saw this and Holy Jesus, Gyllenhaal nailed the insane maniac eyeballs. Why is it you can tell crazy psychos just from their eyes? It totally reminded me of that one mass shooter kid. I forget which one he was, batman movie theater killer maybe? You guys know what I'm talking about? He had the same crazy eyes as in this movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Just saw this and Holy Jesus, Gyllenhaal nailed the insane maniac eyeballs. Why is it you can tell crazy psychos just from their eyes? It totally reminded me of that one mass shooter kid. I forget which one he was, batman movie theater killer maybe? You guys know what I'm talking about? He had the same crazy eyes as in this movie. If you haven't seen it yet watch Prisoners he nailed the look there, plus it is a solid film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:If you haven't seen it yet watch Prisoners he nailed the look there, plus it is a solid film. He is a completely different character in that movie. But it is amazing and he should still watch it. Jackman is much more unhinged than Gyllenhaal in it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:He is a completely different character in that movie. But it is amazing and he should still watch it. Jackman is much more unhinged than Gyllenhaal in it. While I'm not big on Prisoners compared to that director's other films I will say it had an intense mood, was beautifully shot, and Gyllenhaal showed serious chops, he made that character very complex and unpredictable. It's really been a treat to watch him progress as an actor, but 2013 was a huge leap forward.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
To me, Gyllenhaal is having the reverse arc of Liam Neeson. After a career of largely refined, actorly performances, Neeson found huge success with Taken. After that, he has largely stuck to action hero blockbuster stuff. Gyllenhaal had a career that was moving toward major blockbuster territory. Then he had a huge disaster in Prince of Persia. After that, he has really found his footing as a great actor. Of course this is a really reductive interpretation that both ignores the personal tragedy that Liam Neeson went through and the great, lower-key movies Gyllenhaal had been in prior to PoP (Zodiac).
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
I always thought he was more of a critical favorite than a bankable leading man and casting him in PoP always felt like a bizarre choice
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I always thought he was more of a critical favorite than a bankable leading man and casting him in PoP always felt like a bizarre choice That's probably true. It seems like that was his one huge chance to break in to leading man, action movie territory. The only blockbuster he's really been in other than that is The Day After Tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:He is a completely different character in that movie. But it is amazing and he should still watch it. Jackman is much more unhinged than Gyllenhaal in it. Obviously it is a different character, but Gyllenhaal's use of crazy eyes hit new heights in Prisoners and is worth seeing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
The blinking is so intense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:The blinking is so intense. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
    Loki is such an amazing character thanks to Gyllenhaal. I usually never hope for sequels to good movies, but considering all of the mystery, detail, and effort put into the character I would love to see Gyllenhaal do more with him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:
A prequel could be loving fantastic as well. Anything that gives us more of that character.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
I would see the gently caress out of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
It genuinely makes me smile to see that there are fans, specifically, of Detective Loki.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
God, this one's like, Timothy Carey-esque.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
In a better universe they would have just made Season 2 of True Detective a Detective Loki storyline. He really is an awesome character caught in a pretty good movie with very little chance for exploration. Everything about him is just off by just a little bit: his tattoos, his mason ring, his hair, his facial expression, and even the way he wears his clothes (fully buttoned shirt, no tie), the way he "goofily" laughs for just a few seconds too long at dumb jokes, and it's all just magnified when you put him next to Hugh Jackman. Professor Shark fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
I'm never going to let Prisoners discussion go by without talking about how singularly excellent Paul Dano was, and how much I wish Oprah had been the villain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Find a movie with Paul Dano where that doesn't apply - his small part in Looper was even great. poo poo, the only reason he wasn't the complete stand-out in There Will Be Blood was only because DDL was also in the movie. Edit: And I just learned the only film he was in last year was a Brian Wilson biopic also starring Paul Giamatti and John Cusack. Parachute fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Wait...Looper? I don't remember that at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Yeah he played JGL's coworker/friend who was dissected at the beginning when he failed to close his own loop. His screen time was pretty short and he shared it with the older version of himself. Man that was a horrifying scene
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
No kidding. I literally had no idea that was him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Parachute posted:Yeah he played JGL's coworker/friend who was dissected at the beginning when he failed to close his own loop. His screen time was pretty short and he shared it with the older version of himself. Man that was a horrifying scene He's also seen fixing his hover bike early on, which is one of my favourite details in the movie. This stuff is invented, but it all works like poo poo and is just a novelty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Parachute posted:Yeah he played JGL's coworker/friend who was dissected at the beginning when he failed to close his own loop. His screen time was pretty short and he shared it with the older version of himself. Man that was a horrifying scene Oh man, I couldn't watch that movie for the longest time again because of that whole spoilered scene. It's was just too terrifying to imagine. DrVenkman posted:He's also seen fixing his hover bike early on, which is one of my favourite details in the movie. This stuff is invented, but it all works like poo poo and is just a novelty. It goes along well as with the future having telekinetic mutants, which Dano and a couple other loopers are, but the limit of their power is really just parlor tricks. At least until the Rainmaker is revealed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Paul Dano was great as the friend with the giant penis in The Girl Next Door. But really, that movie was way better than a teen sex comedy deserves and had a bunch of great actors in it who have done some really good stuff since (Emile Hirsch, Paul Dano, Timothy Olyphant).
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Paul Dano was great as the friend with the giant penis in The Girl Next Door. I like it because it's pretty much just an updated homage to Risky Business, which is a legit great movie in it's own right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Just watched it tonight. I don't think the assistant dude from Four Lions was a very good fit for this movie. The acting fell kinda flat. Also, I don't remember Lou doing anything to the rival newsguy? I assume it was a complete accident, one that felt way too convenient. In general I think this movie's screenplay feels too convenient. Everything falls into place neatly. Those are my only criticisms about the film. There was a loud, collective gasp in the cinema when the camera cut from Rick to the killer guy in the car. I really love moments like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Also, I don't remember Lou doing anything to the rival newsguy? I assume it was a complete accident, one that felt way too convenient. In general I think this movie's screenplay feels too convenient. Everything falls into place neatly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Just watched it tonight. I don't think the assistant dude from Four Lions was a very good fit for this movie. The acting fell kinda flat. They show Lou rigging Bill Paxton's van just minutes earlier. I thought 4 Lions guy was great. He was flat in the way that burnouts with no direction in life tend to be. Reminded me of people I know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
I thought Riz Ahmed was fantastic as well for the same reason and his presence helped you get a better picture of Lou as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
During the car chase I was absolutely terrified that Rick would lose his grip on the camera and it would go flying out the window. I wanted Lou to succeed, not because I liked him but because him being hoisted by his own petard or facing consequences or ending the film in his own private Hell like American Psycho, would be such a betrayal of what the film had been up to that point. That Lou ended up rewarded for all the poo poo he did was strangely comforting, like the film was saying "Yes, this is how the world works, and yes you are completely right to be terrified."
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
I think there is something said in the relationship between Russo and Jakes characters that I can't quite spell out. What Lou does is incredibly manipulative to Russo but she eventually comes around to it. Their hushed almost romantic conversation near the end and her defense of him sticks out in my mind. Not just on a people level but I think it's trying to make a statement on the nature of media or something. I also think this would fit right in with Pain and Gain in terms of American Dream marathons
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Gatts posted:I think there is something said in the relationship between Russo and Jakes characters that I can't quite spell out. What Lou does is incredibly manipulative to Russo but she eventually comes around to it. Their hushed almost romantic conversation near the end and her defense of him sticks out in my mind. Not just on a people level but I think it's trying to make a statement on the nature of media or something. If I had a theme movie night, it would be "Bad People Doing Bad Things" and it would be a three-movie of Nightcrawler, Pain & Gain, and Spring Breakers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
Gatts posted:I think there is something said in the relationship between Russo and Jakes characters that I can't quite spell out. What Lou does is incredibly manipulative to Russo but she eventually comes around to it. Their hushed almost romantic conversation near the end and her defense of him sticks out in my mind. Not just on a people level but I think it's trying to make a statement on the nature of media or something. You could say she's Leaning In with Lou.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 01:20
|
|