|
SinetheGuy posted:I don't want to stray too far off topic, but in regards to Vargo's comment about midwesterners only half-heartedly responding the Occupy Wall Street, here's a video of Des Moines protesters getting dragged away in cuffs and pepper sprayed. Holy poo poo. Every single time I make a crack about the midwest, I turn out to be so loving wrong. EDIT: We could change it to "Occupy Ashland, Oregon," because I was there and it WAS halfhearted. Vargo fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Oct 11, 2011 |
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
quote:"Husband. Husband. Definitely Husband. Complication. Bad guys. Bad guys want robbery. Kill your family. Definitely." Did anyone else read this in Mordin's voice or was it just me?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2011 23:51
|
|
|
I'm very pleased with my Footloose review and with Footloose in general.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2011 09:46
|
|
|
My parents are so dead set against Footloose as if the very making of this movie itself is a personal insult, which almost made me want to go see it just to be subversive, but your review pushed me over the edge 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2011 10:38
|
|
|
Nucular Carmul posted:My parents are so dead set against Footloose as if the very making of this movie itself is a personal insult, which almost made me want to go see it just to be subversive, but your review pushed me over the edge Tell them they've turned into Rev. Shaw.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2011 12:40
|
|
|
Was The Big Year the first negative-scored movie in the history of Current Releases?Nucular Carmul posted:My parents are so dead set against Footloose as if the very making of this movie itself is a personal insult, which almost made me want to go see it just to be subversive, but your review pushed me over the edge
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:I'm very pleased with my Footloose review and with Footloose in general. drat, apparently. 48/50!? What happened to hypercritical know-it-all Current Releases!? I miss it sometimes. In seriousness, though, I have one question for you Prof.- if you enjoyed the film THAT much, why not say anything about its own merits, divorced of its relationship to the original? I understand the crux of your review is the discussion of juxtaposition, but the whole father/son analogy can't be the only thing carrying this picture if it warrants THAT good of a recommendation. I was a little surprised how devoid of your usual insight this review was, to be honest. Edit- Perhaps I'm being too harsh. What I'm really curious about is how would you discuss this film with someone who has never seen the original Footloose? What would you have to say without that frame of reference? If your point that films need to be remade for contemporary audiences is valid, then doing so should be easy, right? BoldFrankensteinMir fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Oct 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 15:47
|
|
|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:Edit- Perhaps I'm being too harsh. What I'm really curious about is how would you discuss this film with someone who has never seen the original Footloose? What would you have to say without that frame of reference? If your point that films need to be remade for contemporary audiences is valid, then doing so should be easy, right? Maybe I can speak to this a bit, as I only have a passing familiarity with the original, but enjoyed the new version very much, possibly more than a straight man in his 20s has any right to enjoy a movie about dancing. I think a lot of the reason why this film works as well as it does is because the original was very much a product of its time, and this one takes all the iconic beats, songs, and moments and treats them as a constant. Footloose 2011 is a film in which the song "Footloose" has always existed in these people's lives. '84 Footloose was made in the heyday of overproduced Bruckheimer-esque pop cinema where it was all about the iconic image and the hit soundtrack, and as such, that's all most people remember of it anyway. The new version wound up in the hands of a director (Craig Brewer) whose films tend to focus on music as a positive force for change, both cultural and personal. Black Snake Moan, in particular, is all about the healing power of the blues, even when most of the film seems to be about how often can we convince Christina Ricci to go topless. Back to the point, though, I think the fact that Brewer rewrote the film himself, rebuilt it from the ground up and still wound up using pretty much everything from the original (at least from a populist "I remember that image/song" standpoint), and it still winds up being watchable and even enjoyable really speaks to how timeless a film the original actually was. I think people are being needlessly harsh on this film simply because it's a remake of something they know the songs to. Actually, there's no "I think" about it. Check out the film's user rating on IMDb; it's abysmal. But why? Why slight a film just because it's not the original. Fair's fair, I gave The Thing a pretty middling review, but that fell more on its merits as a horror film and a prequel than as a ripoff of another film. If they tried to make this a prequel to the original Footloose, then maybe I could understand the cries of "Oh no, why are they even bothering?" But no, it's been 26 years. Times change, people change, movies change. The new Footloose is good. Go see it. Jay Dub fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Oct 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 16:51
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:Why slight a film just because it's not the original. Conversely, why heap praise on it just because it is? I understand what you guys are saying, and thank you Jay Dub for giving me a little bit with the discussion of music as an uplifting force, but seriously- who acts well in this film? Does it maintain a consistent tone? Does the pacing fit? It seems like (and again, I apologize if this seems overly critical, but it's the honest impression I'm getting here) you guys are so dead-set on proving the masses wrong in their hatred of this film just because it's a remake, that all you're willing to discuss are its values as just a remake. All I'm saying is your praises for this film seem entirely based in some movie-math theoretical sense about remakes and originals and their relationships to eachother. That's all well and good, but if you enjoy the film THAT much, there HAS to be more, right? Because I'll tell you right now, I've seen neither the original Footloose or this remake, and from reading both of your reviews now I have NO idea what the movie is about except dancing being illegal and a very vague and rushed synopsis of the plot. Is that really all there is? There's no other character dynamics or arcs or set pieces or artistic flourishes worth mentioning, other than "it's a celebration of the original"? Come on guys, you know WAY more about movies than you're letting on here, I know it. Whenever you're THIS excited about a film, I get legitimately curious as to why, and I refuse to believe it's just because of a contrariness to the masses. Can you PLEASE tell me why I should see this remake ON ITS OWN MERITS? Without mentioning the original? Because if not, you're admitting the movie is nothing but a novelty for people who remember the original, and that hardly seems worthy of your praise. Edit- for terrible stupid spelling errors. BoldFrankensteinMir fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Oct 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 18:41
|
|
|
First of all, I wasn't aware I was supposed to be reviewing the film. If that's what you want, I can give that to you in fairly short order: "Footloose '11 is a clever, tightly-paced film about the clash between youth and authority, and the power that music and dancing can have in healing a wounded community. The two leads, Kenny Worlmald and Julianne Hough, have an excellent chemistry together, and each gets their chance to shine independent of one another. Dennis Quaid also turns in a strong performance as Hough's father, the reverend who's banned music and dancing after his son dies in a drunk driving accident (which kicks the film off on a sobering note). Despite being nearly two hours long, the film never seems to drag, owing in large part to director Brewer's economic pacing of each scene. No one scene outstays its welcome, and the dancing scenes alone are some of the more energetic and entertaining pieces of pop cinema you'll find this year (second only to the boxing scenes in Warrior and Real Steel, in my opinion). Generally speaking, Footloose '11 succeeds not only in maintaining the pedigree established by the original's place in popular culture, but also by forging its own identity through a smart use of dramatic tension as well as a keen sensibility for what makes pop cinema so engaging in the first place. In short, Footloose is great fun. I wouldn't say it's anywhere near a perfect film, but it's a drat sight better than it has any right being." There. If you forced me to review Footloose '11, it would probably look a lot like that. Fewer jokes and less insight, but there it is. While that's an informative take on what's good about the film and why folks should see it, I can't say I find that kind of film reviewing all that interesting. Sure, it's telling you about the film and the merits/pitfalls of it, but is it really saying anything? Is it sparking any kind of discussion? If you ask me, Professor Clumsy's review was sufficient, and at least led to the exchange we're having right now. I agree, maybe it wasn't the most detailed in its listing of what was good and/or bad about the film, but he still got his point across. Also, you make a fair point. I think one of the main reasons we're praising this film in such broad strokes is because the only conversation people seem to want to have with this film is whether or not it's a bump on the rear end of the original. Is anyone talking about how well-choreographed the dancing is, or how nuanced Kenny Worlmald's performance is? Not really. Most seem content to say, "Well, they kept the theme song and the big dance at the end and whatshisface doesn't completely ape Kevin Bacon, so good for them, I guess." So okay, if that's why we're saying this is an agreeable remake, let's go one step further and say that the only reason this film works at all is that it doesn't poo poo all over the original. Footloose '11 is a success because it's doing more than simply not loving up being a remake; it's an unironic celebration of youthful vigor in an era where people seem deadset on mocking everything, even something as simple as having a good time at the movies. Who cares if it's a remake of Footloose that winds up providing that? This whole thing is sort of endemic to how we discuss remakes in general, and Clumsy touches on it in his review. A whole generation of people cling so tightly to a movie and an experience that when someone comes along offering to let them experience it in a new way, they reject it specifically because it's not this thing that they remember. It's like refusing to go on a roller coaster simply because they refurbished it. Which is completely silly. Sure, they could just rerelease the old Footloose and people would probably go see it, but that's only going to get us so far. To those of us for whom Footloose is just a Kenny Loggins song and a picture of Kevin Bacon on his tippy-toes, this film is an opportunity to see a new version of what everyone else is talking about whenever someone says "Everybody cut! Everybody cut!" There isn't some kind of checklist for qualifying whether or not a given remake is worthy of its successor. That's folly, and a horrible way of reviewing any kind of film. "This was good, but they hosed this up. I didn't like scene X, because the original version had actress X doing this..." It's nonsense. I don't think anyone is going to argue that this film is anything more than a lark. It's a drat good lark, but a lark nonetheless. I don't want to resort to the hackneyed "Not every film can be _______" argument, but Footloose isn't aspiring to anything other than being a fun, energetic time at the movies, and it delivers that in spades. I'm sorry you're so deadset on thinking we're praising this film out of a desire to be contrarian. Personally, I feel like I need to defend it specifically because of all the people who'd laugh it off simply because it's a remake of something their moms made them watch over and over as toddlers. tl;dr: I don't give two shits about the old Footloose, but the new one is a blast. That's all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 21:06
|
|
|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:Come on guys, you know WAY more about movies than you're letting on here, I know it. Whenever you're THIS excited about a film, I get legitimately curious as to why, and I refuse to believe it's just because of a contrariness to the masses. First of all: shut the gently caress up. Secondly: Shut the gently caress up! Dad's talking! I know that you would never give the original Footloose the time of day because it was made in the 80s, so let's try and play things your way. Footloose is about bridging generational gaps. The older generation wants the younger generation to learn from their mistakes, but the younger generation would rather learn from their own mistakes. As the poster says "this is our time." This is represented in this film by the characters from the original Footloose being revived for a new generation. Oops, I mentioned the original. Footloose only works as a remake of Footloose because it's entirely about how the message of Footloose is largely ignored and forgotten by the generation who claim to hold it so dearly. The cast are all generally very good in the acting and dancing departments, especially young Miles Teller as Ren's best buddy Willard. He's just so drat watchable. The most interesting member of the cast is Ray McKinnon as Ren's uncle Wes. He represents the cool side of the generation. The guys who never forgot that they grew up in the times of rock and roll (something that Ebert mentioned in his review, but more that later.) He's the only guy who stand by and trusts Ren, not because he knows him particularly well, but because he knows what hypocrites the rest of town have become under the guidance of Rev. Shaw. You don't need to have seen or be aware of the original Footloose, but you have to be aware that the older generation you're watching in this film were once the kids in Footloose themselves and they totally cut loose! What this film wants you to do is talk to your parents. Simple as that. In closing, shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 21:50
|
|
|
Roger Ebert's review of Footloose focussed on the lack of realism in the film and he considered the closeness to the original to be a huge strike against it, but then he didn't like the original either. At one point he says:Roger Ebert posted:This is the setup for several dance scenes where those kids seem suspiciously well-choreographed for a town where they have allegedly never danced. I'm sorry, Rog, but not only did you miss the fact that these kids dance every chance they get, you also missed the fact that they don't do anything else. Nobody owns or operates a TV or a computer in this film, even the library has no computers in it. The dancing is symbolic of basically all forms of recreational pursuits that might be seen as potentially leading these youths astray. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:Was The Big Year the first negative-scored movie in the history of Current Releases? Here's the thing: While The Big Year is technically competent and nowhere on the level of, say, The Room, it is so loving mediocre and disappointing that it deserves the negative score. It squanders a dream cast on a movie that goes loving nowhere, while actually repeating the same characters' dilemmas several times over. I only scraped the surface when talking about the conflicts, but had I gone more in depth, I would've highlighted that Wilson abandoning his wife during her artificial insemination is actually the culmination of a series of circumstances in which Wilson abandons his wife when she needs him, to go I recognize that, from week to week, I gave The Big Year 20.01 fewer points than Courageous, but it deserves it. Courageous, being an independently financed Christian propaganda film, is an easy target for criticism and, honestly, it was marginally better than I expected. While I had few expectations for The Big Year, the cast alone should've ensured a significantly better movie; instead, I got a 100 minutes of nothing and the burning desire to travel backwards through time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 23:26
|
|
|
I don't mean to completely derail this thread anymore, so I'll be brief. Jay Dub and Prof. Clumsy- thank you very much, you both make some really excellent points and I understand your review better now. Also I'm a little embarrassed that Clumsy remembered I think the 80's are the worst era in film history. That cut the poo poo out of my arguments' legitimacy. Touche. Anyway, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 07:14
|
|
|
So, I went and saw Paranormal Activity 3 tonight. It was pretty good for the most part the theater was packed but it was pretty quiet the whole time during the movie surprisingly. For the movie though the ending of it was kinda stupid, with the little girl saying come her Toby and walking back with her Grandma and Sister.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 07:33
|
|
|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:I think the 80's are the worst era in film history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 10:02
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:
Jeez, patronizing much? I'm sorry. A re-imagining / re-hashing / cash-in on a previously successful franchise to 'bring it up to modern times' is nothing more than Xeroxing the past successes to capitalize on nostalgia or ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
FatmanSA posted:Jeez, patronizing much? Of course, all remakes and sequels are bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
FatmanSA posted:Jeez, patronizing much? Yes, selling something to someone who has never heard of your product is generally what the advertising industry does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 21:18
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:Yes, selling something to someone who has never heard of your product is generally what the advertising industry does. This right here. The target audience for Footloose '11 (which I still haven't seen) is NOT "People who loved the original Footloose." It's "suburban teens who like to spend money on dance movies." Which was the target audience for the original film 25 years ago. You have a new generation of audience members, why not remake the film? You're not faulting the film fro being a remake, you're faulting it for appealing to the same demographic as another film 25 years ago, and that's just ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
Is the dog that presumably plays the thing at the end of the 2011 movie as good as the dog that plays the thing at the beginning of the 1980s movie? That dog was really good at playing a dog that is up to no good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
Angela Christine posted:Is the dog that presumably plays the thing at the end of the 2011 movie as good as the dog that plays the thing at the beginning of the 1980s movie? That dog was really good at playing a dog that is up to no good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
Thanks for jinxing the Redskins/Panthers game today, jerk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 02:52
|
|
|
Johnny Walker posted:Thanks for jinxing the Redskins/Panthers game today, jerk. Yes. Jinxing. That's what it was, jinxing. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 03:37
|
|
|
Maybe it's just me, but "uncharacteristically bland Amanda Seyfried" is a contradiction in terms. Every time I see this woman, she's bland. Even in that movie where she took her top off, she was a pair of tits surrounded by bland.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 14:44
|
|
|
But they were very nice tits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 15:57
|
|
|
Shoehorning a romance into a movie like In Time sounds completely unnecessary. Then again, most movie romances these days seem to be shoehorned in, from what I've seen. At least it sounds like a decent movie in spite of all the flaws Vargo points out. And it's been too long since Jay Dub has reviewed a talking animal movie. Welcome back to therapy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:And it's been too long since Jay Dub has reviewed a talking animal movie. Welcome back to therapy. Thanks to Puss in Boots, I hate both cats and eggs now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
It's weird reading the Tintin review knowing it won't be out in the US for another 2 months. Thanks for the recommendation from the future. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:But they were very nice tits. Oh, no argument there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
I said it in CineD and I'll say it here: the first Harold and Kumar movie was not a stoner comedy, it was a buddy movie that just so happened to have weed in it. It also showed that you can make a successful movie without any of the main characters being white (save NPH). I saw Escape from Guantanamo Bay in theaters, and I couldn't tell you much of what happened in it because it has none of the charm or uniqueness of the first movie (though I do remember that Rob Corrdry was quite good in it, as he is in many of his performances). Dumb stoners will go and see the third movie blazed, and honestly, that's the condition that they should be in when they see something like this because it looks to be just as forgettable as the second movie, and lord knows it needs the enhancements. As for Tower Heist, I read the review and thought that the premise was somewhat similar to another movie starting Eddie Murphy and an uptight white guy trying to screw over the rich. That movie is Trading Places and you should watch it instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 07:54
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:I said it in CineD and I'll say it here: the first Harold and Kumar movie was not a stoner comedy, it was a buddy movie that just so happened to have weed in it. It also showed that you can make a successful movie without any of the main characters being white (save NPH). I saw Escape from Guantanamo Bay in theaters, and I couldn't tell you much of what happened in it because it has none of the charm or uniqueness of the first movie (though I do remember that Rob Corrdry was quite good in it, as he is in many of his performances). Dumb stoners will go and see the third movie blazed, and honestly, that's the condition that they should be in when they see something like this because it looks to be just as forgettable as the second movie, and lord knows it needs the enhancements. I agree with everything in this post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 10:17
|
|
|
Me too. I tried real hard not to come right out and say it in the review, because I've harped on it enough, but Tower Heist is like watching a movie version of Two and a Half Men. Except without all the lame sex jokes. It can't even muster those.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 15:45
|
|
|
I love Current Releases, a lot, and oftentimes refrain from reading the reviews of movies that are going to be awful, but I desperately want to be good (Season of the Witch), because I know they're going to get ripped to shreds. And while this doesn't happen often, do movies who are awful truly deserve a Movie of the Week stamp, even if they are technically the highest rated movie of the week? I feel like Movie of the Week should be reserved for a good movie, or if one doesn't exist, recommend a Netflix or Hulu movie that happens to be streaming that is good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 02:48
|
|
|
You could look at as more of a "If your rear end absolutely has to be in a theater seat this week, this is your least obnoxious bet." Like if you had a date that wanted to go see a new movie and you'd seen everything you wanted to from previous weeks, or if you have a group of friends that traditionally meets to watch a movie and talk about it or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 03:43
|
|
|
Noah posted:And while this doesn't happen often, do movies who are awful truly deserve a Movie of the Week stamp, even if they are technically the highest rated movie of the week? I feel like Movie of the Week should be reserved for a good movie, or if one doesn't exist, recommend a Netflix or Hulu movie that happens to be streaming that is good. Going to second this, it feels like an award that should be reserved for a half-decent movie at least. It also sort of spoils the later movies, since you already know that the turd on the first page was the best movie of the week.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 00:09
|
|
|
Weak Become Heroes posted:Going to second this, it feels like an award that should be reserved for a half-decent movie at least. It also sort of spoils the later movies, since you already know that the turd on the first page was the best movie of the week.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 04:54
|
|
|
Let's say you have three dogs in a dog show. The first dog is diabetic, blind, and only has one leg (poor thing...). The second dog is covered in ticks and uses a set of wheels to help him get around without his front legs. The third dog has all four legs, but has a weak bladder and can only walk sideways due to deep-seated psychological distress. None of these dogs should ever be put into competition, but since they were (and since there were mysteriously no other dogs in the running that week), you have to judge them accordingly. It may not be fair, but the third dog still wins by virtue of being the least damaged one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 15:16
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:Let's say you have three dogs in a dog show. So the award is more one of consequence, then of prestige. I can do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
I wonder if I can come up with a "DOG WITH BLADDER ISSUES OF THE WEEK" icon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 03:30
|
|
