|
Y-Hat posted:When you get down to it, I think that Current Releases is a good fit for the SA front page because it still manages to be humorous in addition to being a good source for movie reviews, and the first thing that comes to mind when I think of SA is "humor." It's not mentioned well in the review, but in the General Chat thread, Vargo stated his rethinking of the movie raised his opinion of the last part.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 11:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
Basically, I realized about halfway through the review that a lot of the stuff I was complaining about was kind of the point of the movie. The movie pulls a bait-and-switch on us because the movie is about a giant bait-and-switch. I actually watched it again last night, and while I still think that the last act isn't very good, it's thematically fitting at least. So I had to give it credit for being clever. Also, ProfessorClumsy punced up the rating because he didn't feel Source Code really deserved Movie of the Week.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 21:38
|
|
|
Motherfuck, how did the guy who OPed this thread get banned AGAIN? Jesus...
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 23:00
|
|
|
Vargo posted:Motherfuck, how did the guy who OPed this thread get banned AGAIN? Jesus... Hakan made a comeback, the whole thread in which Spiderhyphenman got banned in is full of an almost apocalyptic number of bannings and probations of dumb people. It's quite hilarious. (you can click on the Rap Sheet button to see a poster's history of mod action, not sure if you knew that or not) For actual on topic stuff: The review of Source Code brought me no closer to an conclusion of whether I wanted to see it or not. All the things talked about were exactly the things I was on the fence about, guess I'll wait for Netflix.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
Funny that the question came up about James Marsden's career choices, because he's going to be Charlie Manson now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 16:53
|
|
|
ElectricSheep posted:Funny that the question came up about James Marsden's career choices, because he's going to be Charlie Manson now. That is a surprisingly solid choice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
Hahaha, that is awesome. At least the guy's mixing it up a bit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 15:20
|
|
|
Vargo posted:Would it satisfy everyone if I turned my Diary of a Wimpy Kid review into an essay about how much I hate my mother? Do you perhaps have a cat? A dog would do in a pinch, especially if the dog enjoys eating disgusting things. I always enjoy anecdotes about the writers' pets. Movie reviews are fine too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 12:43
|
|
|
Angela Christine posted:Do you perhaps have a cat? A dog would do in a pinch, especially if the dog enjoys eating disgusting things. I always enjoy anecdotes about the writers' pets. Ask anyone who hangs out in CineD, I am more than okay with talking about my dog.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
That was a much more apologetic review of Atlas Shrugged than I expected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 13:21
|
|
|
Dectilon posted:That was a much more apologetic review of Atlas Shrugged than I expected. I think a lot of critics had their reviews written before they'd even seen it, so I'm glad we were able to keep the politics out of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 13:54
|
|
|
Who is John Galt? A extremely poorly written character with wooden dialogue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 17:12
|
|
|
Dectilon posted:That was a much more apologetic review of Atlas Shrugged than I expected. Honestly, there is nothing less interesting to me than political discourse. I understand why the political Right would want to make such a movie and I understand why the political Left would hate such a movie. None of that bullshit has anything to do with Atlas Shrugged as a piece of cinematic storytelling. It's political intentions are amazingly childlike in their simplicity, but the film itself is only somewhat incompetent. It would be perfectly at home on the Hallmark Channel or Lifetime or one of those other stupid TV channels that think they can make real movies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 19:05
|
|
|
Dectilon posted:That was a much more apologetic review of Atlas Shrugged than I expected. You could get down into the minutia of why her politics and worldview are so childish, but we have a couple of threads on the forums for that (which, I must say, I enjoy reading.) I guess I just didn't see the tone as apologetic, but focused on it's failures as a film.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 19:33
|
|
|
I find it commendable that Jay Dub didn't drag politics into his review. Would you say that the movie is very heavy-handed with its agenda or is it overshadowed by boredom?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 23:18
|
|
|
I laughed at this bit in the Soul Surfer review:Emilio Vargo posted:When not singing in church for way too long or looking directly at the camera and saying how wonderful home schooling is, Bethany likes surfing, talking about surfing, surfing in flashbacks, making voice overs about surfing, and clapping her hands. She will be unable to do one of those by the end of the film. Now for the bad part: You used infer when you meant imply 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 01:17
|
|
|
Discount Viscount posted:I laughed at this bit in the Soul Surfer review: My bad. As an English major, I am ashamed. Also, Clumsy told me that I did it when he was editing the piece, but he apparently didn't change it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 01:44
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:Would you say that the movie is very heavy-handed with its agenda or is it overshadowed by boredom? There's plenty about the film that is definitely boring, but the moments where it starts to beat on the Agenda Drum are some of the most comically heavy-handed bits in the whole film. Like there's a scene where Congress passes a bill limiting the number of businesses a person can control to one, and Rearden acts like this is the end of the world because he's been building his business empire all on his own and blah blah blah. So it comes down to this silly emotional scene where he signs away all his mining and oil companies one by one to family and friends, when as far as I could tell, nothing was stopping him from simply consolidating all his companies into one. But because this is a capitalist fantasy, there's no such thing as loopholes or anything that would make Rearden and Taggart's mission any easier. The way the movie pares down its conflict into "Business Good, Regulation Bad" is really only done to make the government look like a pack of meddling children pitching a fit because the rich kids won't share their toys.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 02:52
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:So it comes down to this silly emotional scene where he signs away all his mining and oil companies one by one to family and friends, when as far as I could tell, nothing was stopping him from simply consolidating all his companies into one. Of course there is! If he consolidated them all into one company, all his stuff would be libel for the gently caress ups he does with all his other stuff. Having lots of limited liability companies means that no matter how badly you gently caress up, only a small portion of your assets can be taken by lawsuits or fines. Worried that your aging single-hull oil tankers may leak and create huge liability because you knew they were unsafe? No problem, put them in a subsidiary limited liability company, so if they leak or sink the only thing at risk is your other lovely broken-down oil tankers. You get all the profits, but only a fraction of the risk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 03:09
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:Honestly, there is nothing less interesting to me than political discourse. I understand why the political Right would want to make such a movie and I understand why the political Left would hate such a movie. None of that bullshit has anything to do with Atlas Shrugged as a piece of cinematic storytelling. I re-read the review, and I think I just got hung up on a few sentences here and there. I misunderstood the intent a bit I think. I'm surprised this movie didn't manage to scrounge up more cash than it did. I thought objectivism had more supporters willing to chip in. Maybe they read the script.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 03:12
|
|
|
Angela Christine posted:Of course there is! If he consolidated them all into one company, all his stuff would be libel for the gently caress ups he does with all his other stuff. Having lots of limited liability companies means that no matter how badly you gently caress up, only a small portion of your assets can be taken by lawsuits or fines. Worried that your aging single-hull oil tankers may leak and create huge liability because you knew they were unsafe? No problem, put them in a subsidiary limited liability company, so if they leak or sink the only thing at risk is your other lovely broken-down oil tankers. You get all the profits, but only a fraction of the risk. On the other hand if you can't do this, then congress just passed a law that fucks over almost every large multi-national. Unless of course he had the option to form a privately owned company with his friends and family which owned all his individual businesses. gently caress it, the whole idea is completely retarded. Did Congress also pass a law saying that oil companies can't have more than 1,000 barrels of oil because of one maverick oil man who was making everyone angry?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 03:29
|
|
|
Gyges posted:On the other hand if you can't do this, then congress just passed a law that fucks over almost every large multi-national. Won't someone think of the large multi-nationals? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 04:34
|
|
|
Congress sure as hell will.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
Dectilon posted:I'm surprised this movie didn't manage to scrounge up more cash than it did. I thought objectivism had more supporters willing to chip in. Maybe they read the script. Objectivism is all about not having to chip in to anything for any reason. Not that most objectivists could if they wanted to, since all the ones I've met have been unemployed or working low-wage jobs. Amazingly enough, not one of them has invented train tracks that somehow revolutionize the industry to a degree that government might find regulation necessary. Seriously, loving TRAIN TRACKS are the new world-changing technology?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 08:07
|
|
|
Vargo posted:My bad. As an English major, I am ashamed. Wait... I could have sworn I changed that!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 14:18
|
|
|
Alpha3KV posted:Objectivism is all about not having to chip in to anything for any reason. Well yes, but I dare you to find a philosophy where the majority of its followers aren't hypocrites in some way or another. Except perhaps the Hypocrites.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 14:59
|
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:Who is John Galt? And in the movie played by the director.... Dectilon posted:Except perhaps the Hypocrites. I am hypocritically with you... Bedevere fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Apr 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 15:36
|
|
|
Question for everyone: On occasion, (not this week) a week comes along that offers little to no options for new releases. On weeks like this, how would everyone feel about a "reader's choice" week, where people in this thread/ the CineD General Chat thread would be allowed to give suggestions for films they'd like to see us tackle? Theoretically, we'd then pick two or three to go with. If we wanted to get really fancy, you could even suggest which reviewer you wanted to write which movies. If anyone would be interested, or has any ideas how we would even make this thing work, let us know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
I'd like to see all the reviewers tackle an older movie and see how their reviews differ...
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
It's not a bad idea, but it'd be hard to pick something you haven't already seen (if that's the intention). Something I'm hoping you'll do some time is have a 'round table' discussion about movies in general, the health of the medium and maybe even the state of professional criticism. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 01:27
|
|
|
Dectilon posted:Something I'm hoping you'll do some time is have a 'round table' discussion about movies in general, the health of the medium and maybe even the state of professional criticism. This right here is exactly why we need a podcast or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
Review the cheap knock offs of some of your blockbuster favourites.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 01:48
|
|
|
Dectilon posted:It's not a bad idea, but it'd be hard to pick something you haven't already seen (if that's the intention). We have opinions one all of those, boy howdy. I think we're waiting on some equipment purchases (mic for Ian, sound card for me) before we can get the podcast underway. Hopefully come summer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 04:43
|
|
|
If there are no new releases, just review hentai games instead. Or fashion, I bet film critics have a lot to say about fashion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
Do some horrors of porn reviews.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 00:09
|
|
|
Review direct to video sequels of Disney animated movies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 15:09
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Review direct to video sequels of Disney animated movies. That's not a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
I just came back from seeing Thor, and I have to say I pretty much agree with you. The two storylines (if the bits on earth can be considered a story) don't gel, and the transition between them is jarring. Chris Hemsworth does a good job, and I like the fact that he's in fact NOT shocked by how different earth is. He may say and do some ridiculous things, but we don't need to hear the oh-so-hilarious exchange "what manner of devilry is this?!?" "It's a TE-LE-PHONE! It lets you throw your voice reeeeeally faaaaaar" or some poo poo like that. Thor's friends did their roles alright in the first scene they're in but after that they mostly stop acting at all and I wish they'd just faded away. The Hawkeye cameo was alright. Not pretentious and not flashy. He was just there for nerds to recognize for now. Loki seems to change his motivations and plans like most people change underpants, and yet at the end I figured that since he apparently knows of other paths than Bifrost (which he points out to Heimdahl) he would reconcile with his brother at the end and let him return to earth so he can star in the The Avengers, but not even that happens. I didn't feel there was enough there to make Loki go quite as nuts as he does, and that makes it even sillier. I did like Laufey though and the look of the jotun, and even if the fight scene in Jotunheim was chaotic and impossible to follow I did like the exchange Laufey and Thor had there. It actually set him up as the unresponsible, overeager warrior type he was supposed to be quite well I felt. The mythology itself is shot to hell though. To start, Laufey is female in mythology and in fact Loki's mother. Loki isn't Thor's brother either, but rather blood-brother to Odin. But all that is of course malleable and they had some ideas going, like Odin keeping Loki as hostage to prevent new wars, but every clever idea ended up not delivering because Thor had to go fight some marines. That whole sequence was and looked silly, even if you could mostly see what was going on there. I wish some choreographer could figure out something better than "run into my arms so I can throw you". The fight with that one big dude was alright though, and it reminded me of fights from Indiana Jones of all things. All in all, I'm not really sorry I saw it, but it's also fading from memory as I write this and tomorrow I won't give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
Laufey is a girl's name. Calling a fearsome jötunn king that is like like calling him Daisy. FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 00:12 on May 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
Marvel's version of the Norse mythology has always been shot to hell.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 00:05
|
|
