|
I am disgusted that Grown Ups 2 exists, yet placated that there is a Current Releases review for it. One advantage of living overseas is that nobody bothers importing lovely American comedies so I don't have to see advertising for it. Smurfs, on the other hand...Vargo posted:As honored as I am by this, where the hell are you guys getting these primo film jobs? Korean film criticism has a shallow bench. I'm the only one who watches and reviews movies without English subtitles. It's still a really niche field that doesn't pay that much and has to be supplemented by other work for the site. Vargo posted:What is the media criticism project you're working on? We love throwing love and shout-outs to our friend's projects, so tell us more, and we'll help if we can. I write movie reviews for HanCinema. Lately it's just been one a week, with four drama episode reviews, but my work's going to get a lot more intensive soon now that I'm making the switch to full time. I've been bugging my editor to make a master list of all the reviews, and I'm going to update the OP of the South Korean Film Megathread once that finally happens. I've slowly been linking all my reviews in that thread in weekly installments. Your shout-outs would be welcome. Korean film criticism in English tends to be dominated by academic critiques and orientalist explanations. I got into the field to try and change that, and while I'm making decent progress, right now it's pretty much tied to the relatively mainstream HanCinema audience. I covered an entire film festival earlier this year in over a dozen articles only to belatedly find out they have relatively little interest in film festival coverage. Bloodnose posted:Sometimes I'll see a local or Chinese movie and think about how ProfessorClumsy or Vargo might review it. Can I send you a BluRay? The last time I went to the States I brought a bunch of DVDs of movies that aren't well-known stateside. I'd love to share, too, except I don't know anyone's address and I don't have PMs either.
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:11 |
|
|
Are you Darcy Paquet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
I've been reading your reviews for 3+ years but never thought to check this thread. Just dropping in to say you guys are cool and I like your reviews. You saved me from my terrible life of reading rotten tomatoes and metacritic reviews. I don't always agree, of course, but I find I do more often than not. Ian, you are the only person I know of other than myself and my pal Ali who loved Battleship!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
I loved Battleship too. I even gave it a shout-out in my Pacific Rim review. Also, my review was intended as back-handed. Pacific Rim might be one of the best-produced spectacles. I'm starting to wonder if we should even bother with plots and treat blockbusters like porn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Keanu Grieves posted:I loved Battleship too. I even gave it a shout-out in my Pacific Rim review. I think he knows what Moviegoers are. Moviegoers are the mob. Conjure magic for them and they'll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they'll roar. The beating heart of Moviegoers is not the construction of the plot, it's the pixels of the CGI. He'll bring them death - and they will love him for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
Vargo posted:As honored as I am by this, where the hell are you guys getting these primo film jobs? Asia. Also family connections in America + school connections in China. Chinese/American co-productions are the hottest thing right now and have crazy amounts of money floating around in them and there are lots of opportunities for people who can connect Chinese money to American or other western film talent. The downside to this is that you have to work with the State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television (SARFT), which is the Chinese censorship bureau. That means that the things you can say about China, show Chinese people doing, and have in your plot are pretty restricted. The most annoying one I think is that all criminals must be punished, so you can't have a movie even as innocuous as Despicable Me, because the protagonist of that film breaks the law. You can also never show Chinese people living in a world without a strong central government. Which is sad because I've seen some great screenplays for post-apocalyptic China and stuff like that. Also the most popular and economically viable films in east Asia over the last decade or so have been pretty terrible. Everyone is trying to recreate Lost in Thailand (人再囧途之泰囧) because it grossed US$200 mil on a US$5 mil budget, which is a first for China. Somebody PM me an address and I'll mail you a copy as long as you promise to review it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:Are you Darcy Paquet? No. Actually from my perspective he's part of the establishment. He's not a bad reviewer (his stuff easily beats the hell out of most of the tomatometer), but his writing requires a lot of cultural assumptions to really understand very well. I happen to agree with Current Releases that films need to be reviewed independently from a film politics context. Keanu Grieves posted:Also, my review was intended as back-handed. Pacific Rim might be one of the best-produced spectacles. I'm starting to wonder if we should even bother with plots and treat blockbusters like porn. Speaking of which, I was actually surprised to see Pacific Rim get such a high score. I thought about The Avengers review, which seemed to take the position that special effects don't matter when everything surrounding them is completely pointless. Granted, you're not Professor Clumsy. I think this might be the first review that really made me think about how the different staff members actually do write different reviews, even if the general style is the same. Of course, the main takeaway is to remember that the points don't actually matter anyway. They're more like a parting joke than anything serious most of the time. Was it intentional that the numbers add up to 46 but it's labelled as 36?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 06:15
|
|
|
I'm not seeing how they add up to 46... As far as The Avengers goes, the sheer spectacle didn't grab me so I share Ian's opinion regarding the film. I hate the "turn your brain off" argument as much as the next CR critic, but there's little in Pacific Rim that's genuinely offensive so I feel free to like it as a spectacle. Movies that celebrate international cooperation, after a long history of movies that don't, have already won my charity, and audiences will probably get exactly what they expect from Pacific Rim. The fascist subtext of the superhero narrative, however...well, it scares me so I'm predisposed towards disliking such films unless they actually explore the political tension at the heart of the film. The Dark Knight, coming at the tail end of the Bush presidency, did that exceptionally well -- but only a few superhero movies since (Iron Man 3, Kick-rear end, Super) have bothered exploring the horrors of superhero morality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
I think one element of Pacific Rim that gives it a big edge on the Avengers is that it doesn't try to dip its toe into issues that it's too chicken to actually address. The Avengers gestures vaguely towards nazism, rape, surveillance, 9/11, etc, but it always pulls out or shrugs those topics off with a flippant remark. It aims for the credibility that comes with addressing these subjects, but is too cowardly to actually explore them. Pacific Rim, on the other hand, never even starts venturing down that hole to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
My problem with The Avengers politically is that it seemed to want to appeal to every sensibility. Every time I thought it was saying something, something would come along in undermine that idea or they'd have something that took the opposite stance. It seemed calculated to to make it so everyone could think the movie shared their political ideals but by doing that it made it so it made no stance on anything and ended up being confused and wishy washy. The Dark Knight Rises has similar problems but I still think an message can be derived from it, especially when taken in the context of the other two films.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Yeah, you guys nailed it. Pacific Rim seems devoid of a political agenda and you can't critique it based on its subtext, that military might is the ultimate solution to any problem, without criticizing the entire genre. It's a problem endemic to action movies, and to thoroughly critique Pacific Rim on that basis is akin to criticizing a horror film with I DON'T LIKE SCARY!! It doesn't develop strong human characters, leaving Charlie Day to steal every scene he's in because he's the only one who tries something different, but on the scale of super-sized action blockbusters, it's politically harmless in the current context and not really terrible on a narrative level. Pacific Rim just desperately needs a Pacific Rim Zero to fill in the gaps. At least it's head and shoulders above the Transformers series. There's a coherence in Pacific Rim that series sorely lacked. I could probably keep track of what's going on the action scenes with the volume off, although Pacific Rim helpfully provides pilots who narrate the action for no one's benefit but ours, so maybe it's not as visually coherent as it seems.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:Asia. Also family connections in America + school connections in China. Chinese/American co-productions are the hottest thing right now and have crazy amounts of money floating around in them and there are lots of opportunities for people who can connect Chinese money to American or other western film talent. Maybe it's just me but this sounds like an interesting Ask/Tell thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Keanu Grieves posted:I'm not seeing how they add up to 46... You're right, I was doing too much math-related activity when I wrote that post and kind of bamboozled myself. axleblaze posted:My problem with The Avengers politically is that it seemed to want to appeal to every sensibility. Every time I thought it was saying something, something would come along in undermine that idea or they'd have something that took the opposite stance. It seemed calculated to to make it so everyone could think the movie shared their political ideals but by doing that it made it so it made no stance on anything and ended up being confused and wishy washy. I never would have attached the term "wishy washy" to a masculine power trip like Avengers but that actually fits really well. DumbWhiteGuy posted:Maybe it's just me but this sounds like an interesting Ask/Tell thread Maybe later when we have more experience. This job might end up turning me into a gibbering psychotic, for all I know right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Speaking of which, I was actually surprised to see Pacific Rim get such a high score. I thought about The Avengers review, which seemed to take the position that special effects don't matter when everything surrounding them is completely pointless. Granted, you're not Professor Clumsy. I think this might be the first review that really made me think about how the different staff members actually do write different reviews, even if the general style is the same. This is, I think, a key point to remember. We don't even always agree with EACH OTHER. Very rarely are we in direct opposition, but sometimes one of us goes ga-ga (or into a rage) over a film when the rest of us just don't get it. Even so, there are four people here with four unique perspectives and four different views of what makes a film good. We draw off and learn from each other, and that makes us better writers. A long time ago, I believe it was when Joe reviewed Unstoppable, Ian mentioned to me that he loved the way Joe uses one actor to fill in for the entire FBI. Meaning he wrote "The FBI (Actor's name)" I agreed, it was a very funny and effective technique, and so of course I stole it from him. Now it's just a second nature, something we do. I think that team-criticism is a method that isn't well tapped right now, (at least not in written form, there are some GREAT team podcasts) but it can be used to great effect. Many of my ideas for reviews come from just talking with these guys about the movie I just saw, even if they haven't seen it yet. The Online Film Critics Society doesn't like how self-referential we are, and they've told us so, but the truth is (this is going to sound so pretentious), not many people are trying what we try, so we can play with that. There are several critics right now who write "in-character" like FILM CRIT HULK or That Guy With The Glasses, but I think we're the only ones that are writing in-character, and establishing a little fictional world with running gags like the Current Releases office, "British Time!", Jay Dub and the Animals, and outside characters like Harold Gorman, Hollywood Foreman, Donovan Laird, and Montague "Legally Sane" Smythe (though admittedly we've been trying to shy away from these joke characters more and more), but they're still fun to bring out every once in a while. The truth is, Martin R. "Vargo" Schneider is a fictional character that echoes real-person Marty Schneider's thoughts and opinions in a snarkier-Something-Awful-style manner. I've come to think of us as the Jon Stewart/Steven Colbert concept of film criticism. We're overexaggerating and we're making jokes, yes, but the sentiment is real, the thought process is real, and the arguments and points are just as valid as anyone's. The point is, there's four of us, not always agreeing, doing something that's a little unique, so it's hard to have totally set-and inflexible policies. For example this: Some Guy TT posted:I happen to agree with Current Releases that films need to be reviewed independently from a film politics context. ...is not 100% our position, but it's not 0% our position either. If anything, I have a tendency to review the political implications and potential effects of a film MORE than the quality of the film itself. It's something I've been called on, and it's probably accurate. All films and art have some political context to them, because art doesn't exist in a vacuum. (That is a phrase I am stealing from Professor Clumsy) So Political motives almost HAVE to be considered in a film, but the extent to which it matters varies greatly from movie to movie. This concept came in when Jay Dub bravely and fairly reviewed Atlas Shrugged without making a judgement based on the politics inherent in it. I frequently get religious-themed films, so I try to remove the film and politics as much as my ability will allow me. It IS 100% our policy that it is possible to disagree with a film's message and ideas, but still enjoy the film. That's where the removal of politics comes from. Sorry for the rant, it was just a good opportunity for me to lay down some points that have been on my mind and are never really addressed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
Bad phrasing on my part there. I don't mean literally film politics, but more like inter-industry jockeying that you can only really know about from reading the trades. I also considered "gossip", but that makes it sound like I'm discussing Mr. and Mrs. Smith style hooking up on set. I can't come up with a good word to describe "the complex personal backstories of the actors, characters, and production department". I do think messaging is important and something that needs to be taken into account, whether intentional or unintentional. Just on the textual or subtextual level rather than the meta one. It's frustrating how so many people, even film critics, adamantly refuse to acknowledge that the messages in movies do affect us. You don't have to get too far in racism or sexism discussions before someone defensively states "it's just a movie with (special snowflake situation) so who cares?" One the things about Korean film criticism that annoys me is that "because Korean culture" is constantly used as a qualifier whenever something non-standard shows up. By my count, there is way more weird stuff in American movies that can only be explained by American culture than anything I've ever seen in Korean cinema. Professor Clumsy's summing up of Lady in the GI Joe Sequel really nails just how completely bizarre that whole character archetype is, and I can't think of any reason why someone would unironically put that in a movie except due to Hollywood's weird relationship with pseudo-feminist messaging. Vargo posted:Sorry for the rant, it was just a good opportunity for me to lay down some points that have been on my mind and are never really addressed. I was actually kind of disappointed when I'd finished reading this thread that it hadn't come up yet. It's really obvious that you guys have a mission statement but lack the opportunity to ever explicitly mention it since you normally just write reviews.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Keanu Grieves posted:Yeah, you guys nailed it. Pacific Rim seems devoid of a political agenda and you can't critique it based on its subtext, that military might is the ultimate solution to any problem, without criticizing the entire genre. Interestingly enough, the characters in Pacific Rim aren't actually a part of any official military, although it is a military style organization. Only one character has a title, marshal, which is notably not only used as a military rank. In addition, while the characters are (mostly) well disciplined, they are also not afraid to question their superiors and do not follow orders blindly. Schwarzwald fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Jul 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
DumbWhiteGuy posted:Maybe it's just me but this sounds like an interesting Ask/Tell thread I'm sure it will be. Like Some Guy TT said, I need more experience first. My first movie won't even be out for another two years  What I've done so far isn't as interesting as it sounds. Mostly just reading screenplays and saying some combination of "this is terrible," "this will sell," "this won't pass the censors," "this doesn't have enough China," and "this is great." I think that's mostly what people do in Hollywood, except without worrying about censorship.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
They just call it by something else..."this won't make as much $$".
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 07:16
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Interestingly enough, the characters in Pacific Rim aren't actually a part of any official military, although it is a military style organization. Only one character has a title, marshal, which is notably not only used as a military rank. Yay, PMCs. Also, Pacific Rim aside, political criticism is generally my default mode. Basically, though, a film is like a magic trick. If it's entertaining enough, sometimes it can distract me from examining its agenda too closely. I don't necessarily regret any of my reviews (except maybe the early ones, written when I knew less about film) but essentially a movie has to give me a 16-hour buzz to get a good review because that's the turnaround: See a movie Friday night, file a review by Saturday afternoon. If a film can do that, it's done two things: It's entertained me enough to justify the ticket price and it's void of overtly toxic messages. Keanu Grieves fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Jul 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
Another great job by the writers! I had been looking forward to the review of Turbo for a while. Jaydub does bring an interesting point in this one: "If the people at IndyCar are hoping Turbo might bring new fans to the sport, they're in for a rude awakening when they see this film does nothing to shed racing's image as a sport all about going fast and turning left. That's about as involved as this film portrays it, but then maybe that's all it really needs to do. Kids are probably going to go nuts for Turbo, because little orange blobs that go fast are cool. Machines that go fast and make tons of noise doing it? Even cooler. Following your dreams without doing any of the work involved? That's the coolest thing there is." As a fan of the sport, I kind of definitely see where he's coming from. It's very difficult on occasion for me to sell auto racing to people because they in general have that perception. I can't convince them to follow the sport just based on the fact that "Wow the cars go really fast, there's wrecks..and they go around in circles for hours on end!" But on the other hand, I have to somewhat look at the target audience for the movie. When I was that age (and a fan of the sport, mind you) I really didn't care about the skill it actually took, but rather the things that Jaydub describes. I cared about playing with the toy cars, and cheering on Penske or Richard Petty (because they raced in cars with cool color schemes). I am hoping that the movie "Rush" by Ron Howard will be better to illustrate what JayDub feels was lacking in a movie like "Turbo", and a movie like "Driven" for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
It's tough, because one thing that almost always stops a sports movie dead in its tracks is whenever a character starts explaining the sport. I'm not asking for characters to remind Turbo "This is how you take a turn, here's when it's appropriate to pass, etc." Especially in a kids movie, that's just boring. But taking a moment or two to show us that Turbo knows all this stuff would've been appreciated. Even if all the kids take away from it is "Hey, Turbo is pretty smart!" That would make all the difference in the world. There are ways to work this stuff in without making it seem like a lot of jargony exposition. Turbo doesn't really even try.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:I'm sure it will be. Like Some Guy TT said, I need more experience first. My first movie won't even be out for another two years The newest Stephen Chow movie is good because it actually tries to make the characters interesting and motivated. How much of that it succeeds with is debatable, and it turns into Chow's normal scene "borrowing" for the effects-laden ending, but there is an overall theme of tragic love and destiny that is consistent with the movie's theme, not ignored in favor of the effects. Despite the many many flaws, it was a breath of fresh air and shows there is still good stories out there. Granted, the new squad of bored billionaires turned movie makers won't have the same clout or experience as Stephen Chow, but that doesn't mean there can't be an interesting story and less Empires of the Deep.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
The great thing about our co productions is that our writers are American. The Chinese entertainment establishment (including HK and Taiwan) has never valued writers for basically anything, with TV dramas being even more horrible than big budget movies, so it's a shame that there's not much writing talent in Greater China. It's nice that we can pull from the big pool in the US and translate it to Asia. The deal to get mainland money means putting Chinese actors in it (though they don't always have to be mainlanders. Taiwanese and Hong Kong work too) and making it censor-friendly. I have high hopes for my productions. It's just too bad the first one with my name on it is going to be a romantic comedy in the vein of Finding Mr. Right because that's what's most marketable. By the way nobody has sent me an address yet. Who wants to review Finding Mr. Right? C'mon, it'll be fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
I was looking forward to the reviews of Turbo and Red 2 this week as well, because ever since I started seeing ads for these I just sort of blankly thought "well these are ideas that...uh...exist I guess". I was maybe hoping these movies had actual edges, but nope, looks like they're exactly as advertised. I'm kind of disappointed that the Helen Mirren / Byung-Hun Lee stuff was actually entertaining, since that just begs the question of why we can't have movies where upper-class Englishwomen and highly motivated Asian guys beat up everyone. That actually sounds like a novel idea that hasn't been done a million times already. So, I'm at PiFan (Puchon International Fantastic Film Festival) right now, and got a chance to see Sightseers. It may interest you to learn, Professor Clumsy, that Steve Oram confirmed that this film was intended to be a slightly more exciting version of an actual British holiday. The guy was chomping to give a decisive answer to my question before I even finished it. I'm surprised he didn't direct it, too- he had a lot to say about the movie in a lot of expansive detail. It's up for the competition award. I gave it four stars (out of five), but I'm curious what score you would give it on a scale of "how much do I want this to win / how likely is it that something else will be better than this one". Fun fact- the Korean word they used for the film is also commonly translated as "tourist". So now when I think about xenophobic horror films like Turistas I'm going to think of Sightseers and think, hey, there's a much more interesting take on the same idea without the horrible social implications. You guys know anything about Cheap Thrills or Resolution? I decided to pencil in time for these movies based on the arbitrary fact that I've met and spoken to their directors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 07:06
|
|
|
Resolution is top-notch. One of my favorite horror films that's not actually a horror film. What'd you think?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
I really loved everything right up until the ending. I was expecting a better twist than the monster was filming the found footage. It makes sense, but that much just seemed kind of obvious. Although I was wondering throughout the entire scene with the French guy why he kept going on about infinite space and images but the mirror clearly wasn't creating an infinite image even though it was facing another mirror. Fortunately everything up until the ending was so solid that it doesn't ruin the movie for me or anything. Was a little surprised to learn that it's easily watchable anywhere. Granted it was made last year, just never occurred to me that films easily available for home viewing could still move around on the festival circuit. The directors said they're going into production for their next film in a few months. Already have a thrice-revised script, though I don't think they have a title yet. On-topic question- why hasn't Current Releases reviewed it? What is the basic criteria for selecting movies anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
Well, we try to get movies the week of their release. There's been a couple of exceptions, but I didn't see Resolution (or the similar and similarly fun The Battery) until weeks after their VOD premieres. Ian reviews some movies early because, well, gently caress the UK.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 13:17
|
|
|
Turbo having a sassy Asian grandma sounds pretty racist, you could have got on that. I believe in you!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Keanu Grieves posted:Also, Pacific Rim aside, political criticism is generally my default mode. Basically, though, a film is like a magic trick. If it's entertaining enough, sometimes it can distract me from examining its agenda too closely. I don't necessarily regret any of my reviews (except maybe the early ones, written when I knew less about film) but essentially a movie has to give me a 16-hour buzz to get a good review because that's the turnaround: See a movie Friday night, file a review by Saturday afternoon. If a film can do that, it's done two things: It's entertained me enough to justify the ticket price and it's void of overtly toxic messages. Still, I was surprised to see it get a higher score on the front page review too. Phoenixan fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Phoenixan posted:Reading this, I have to agree with you here. Pacific Rim was entertaining enough, but it's not something I'm going to look back fondly on in 5+ years. Saying it's a 16-hour buzz is a pretty good description of it really. Favorite camera movement of the new century right there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
Frankly, the "his claws are dongs" theory does explain a lot about Wolverine fanboys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 13:32
|
|
|
Edward Penishands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
Thank you, Professor Clumsy for making me want to watch The Wolverine, the most penis movie this summer (was Prometheus last years'?).
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
More dicks than you can shake a bunch of dicks at.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Could you expand on the Anti-Narrative of Phantom Menace? I'm not familiar with that argument. Is it just the nature of a prequel to be anti-narrative? Or am I forgetting something about the way that Episode 1 is told?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:More dicks than you can shake a bunch of dicks at. a fist full of dicks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 07:22
|
|
|
Mag-dick-ficient Seven
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
I was wondering how A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III was advertised in the States? It's coming out in about a week (if it hasn't already) in France and they're playing up the Bill Murray/Jason Schwartzman angle pretty hard and pretty much trying to advertise it as a pseudo Wes Anderson film (whose a favorite around here). Also was finally dragged out to see Frances Ha by some friends. I agreed with the review wholeheartedly about the movie being about insufferable people doing pointless things, but what was most interesting was that the Americans pretty much panned it while the Europeans really liked it. The general consensus boiled down to the fact that since the Americans present (all coming from New England) had grown up with people like that, it had hit too close to home and reminded them of actual insufferable people. Anyway, it was interesting to see opinions divided like that by cultural differences.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
Okay so what's the ending for Breaking the Girls? Just say it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 10:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:11 |
|
|
TheBigC posted:Could you expand on the Anti-Narrative of Phantom Menace? I'm not familiar with that argument. Is it just the nature of a prequel to be anti-narrative? Or am I forgetting something about the way that Episode 1 is told? The Phantom Menace, similarly to The Wolverine, is a thematically precise procession of scenes designed to drive home a point about allowing your actions to be guided, but the plot is dull and nonsensical. It's not really an anti-narrative film, but you get the impression that George Lucas wanted it to be. Also, it's worth pointing out that The Wolverine is not a prequel, but a sequel to X3: The Last Stand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 11:38
|
|