|
Yeah, I unexpectedly had to help a friend move today so the column was a total surprise to me.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 09:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
Seeing Insidious Chapter 2's Rotten Tomatometer score, I had a feeling it will fare far better with Current Releases. I am so happy to be right. Too bad the movie won't be screened in my country for another month.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 09:48
|
|
|
I can confirm: Insidious 2 is a whole lotta fun. It's not quite as great as the first, but it takes the story into wildly unexpected territory. So if audacious plotting is your thing, it delivers. I only wish they didn't have to tone down a certain aspect of the story to secure a PG-13 rating because I feel like it muddles the plot a bit. It's like watching a PCA-era film in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
Real glad Insidious 2 is great, 1 is one of my favorite horror movies too and the review sounds right up my alley. Gonna get some friends and go see that soon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
I agree with the Grandmaster review, the fights were great but it felt really disjointed. Like 3/4 of the way through I remember thinking "So is Gong Er really the grandmaster? Why are we spending so much time on this character?" Also, in other terrible Robert De Niro movie news, did any of the Current Releases crew see terrible De Niro/John Travolta cat and mouse thriller "Killing Season" earlier this summer? It was not great, but hopefully bought a few more yachts for Timmy and Kenny!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
TheBigC posted:I agree with the Grandmaster review, the fights were great but it felt really disjointed. Like 3/4 of the way through I remember thinking "So is Gong Er really the grandmaster? Why are we spending so much time on this character?" Gong Er can't be the grandmaster, because Gong Er never taught Bruce Lee.  I get the feeling they had the fight scene at the train station all worked out, and then had to reverse engineer that whole B plot just to get there. Like, I want to believe there was more thought put into it than that, but it certainly doesn't show.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
Current Releases reviewed a (kinda) Hong Kong movie!  I wonder exactly how much was cut for the US release, and I also wonder how differently Jay Dub would've felt about the original cut. To be honest, I don't personally enjoy Wong Kar-wai movies all that much. Although I can appreciate them and I understand the appeal for faggy hipster types. I definitely enjoyed The Grandmaster a lot more than most though. His take on a martial arts film appealed to me a lot more than Happy Together or In the Mood for Love. And at least I don't have to hear 'California Dreaming' 50 loving times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
All right, you all are the closest thing to film critic friends I have, so I'd like to discuss shop for a moment. Have you ever been in a situation where you're watching a film and generally taking stock of the flaws for the sake of writing a review later, only to realize at the end with a really subtle shot or line that you'd actually been reading the entire situation completely wrong and it fundamentally alters your notion about what had previously seemed to be an obvious flaw? I don't mean a situation like "Breaking the Girls", where it's a textual plot twist. The situation I'm in is that I had assumed a film had a weak underdeveloped romantic subplot, but then when the ending came around I realized the character was more of a metaphorical representation of the possibilities in the protagonist's life than an actual love interest. And that this narrative thread runs through every part of the film's broader storyline, so that a film I had thought was well-made but scattershot in its narrative implications was actually much stronger than I thought while I was actually watching it. It's making me feel ambivalent, because while I obviously have to discuss this in my review, it's hard to disassociate this from my own personal feelings and the way I read movies. Theoretically this should result in a review that will prevent the situation I went through (since I'll be giving the readers clues as to what they should be watching for), but still. I'm supposed to be a professional opinion-haver but it taking that long to figure it out makes me doubt my analytical abilities, since a lot of what I thought were good critiques I now know to be completely wrong and missing the film's actual point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:All right, you all are the closest thing to film critic friends I have, so I'd like to discuss shop for a moment. Have you ever been in a situation where you're watching a film and generally taking stock of the flaws for the sake of writing a review later, only to realize at the end with a really subtle shot or line that you'd actually been reading the entire situation completely wrong and it fundamentally alters your notion about what had previously seemed to be an obvious flaw? I don't mean a situation like "Breaking the Girls", where it's a textual plot twist. The situation I'm in is that I had assumed a film had a weak underdeveloped romantic subplot, but then when the ending came around I realized the character was more of a metaphorical representation of the possibilities in the protagonist's life than an actual love interest. And that this narrative thread runs through every part of the film's broader storyline, so that a film I had thought was well-made but scattershot in its narrative implications was actually much stronger than I thought while I was actually watching it. Don't get discouraged, it happens to us all at some point. This is exactly what happened to me with Insidious, where halfway through writing the review I realized that my biggest complaint, the third-act tonal shift, was actually part of the point of the movie. The best thing to do, if you have time, is to re-write it, or to simply come out and say "at first, you may believe X, as I did, but if you pay attention, it's actually Y." This is a perfectly acceptable and common thing for a critic to say. It's just like having a different opinion on a film after the second viewing. It's a testament to your analytic abilities that you were able to recognize this in the first place and more importantly, it shows that you are capable of analyzing your own work. So don't be too down on yourself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
It's good to know that Runner Runner is as dull as the constant trailers for it I've been forced to sit through made it look.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
I just wanted to hop in to say cheers to Professor Clumsy; I read your reviews every week even if I haven't heard of the movie and don't plan on seeing it, mostly because there's always great lines like this: "There is a woman in this film. Unfortunately, Runner Runner left me slightly confused as to just what a woman is. Sometimes I think that they're people, but then I keep seeing movies where they're not." And the aside about hypercompetency in American media - some really good thought-provoking lines that I can muse over and then throw into conversation later to completely enrage all the horrible, horrible nerds I hang out with on a regular basis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
There's something refreshing about the movie of the week being a kidflick sequel full of puns. Makes me feel good inside.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
fuzzy_logic posted:I just wanted to hop in to say cheers to Professor Clumsy; I read your reviews every week even if I haven't heard of the movie and don't plan on seeing it, mostly because there's always great lines like this: Thank you. Enraging horrible nerds is what I live for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
I really wish the "how easy is it to describe the plot without mentioning any female characters" test could become the new Bechdel Test, because the latter encourages lots of nerdish nitpicking but it's very easy to just do basic summaries of a movie and go "I can't figure out why this movie has a female lead except for the sake of having a female lead". Unfortunately it will probably never happen because there's no catchy name attached to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
Well, if it's a catchy name you want, a similar test was recently coined by Kelly Sue DeConnick, dubbed "the sexy lamp test". Basically, you have to determine whether the story would be affected if the female lead were replaced with a particularly beguiling lamp.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
That seems like a theory that just needs a tumblr photoshopping the lamp from A Christmas Story in place of useless female characters to take off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:That seems like a theory that just needs a tumblr photoshopping the lamp from A Christmas Story in place of useless female characters to take off. Please someone do this, maybe make a photoshop friday thread for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
There's clearly a lot wrong with Battle of the Year, but I do sincerely believe that more movies need to feature a gruff and drunken Josh Holloway being coaxed back into action.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
I realize that the reason there's at least one dance battle movie a year is because they never fail to turn a profit (thanks to how cheaply they're made and the fact that they're all in 3D), but I still have to ask: where's the demand?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:I realize that the reason there's at least one dance battle movie a year is because they never fail to turn a profit (thanks to how cheaply they're made and the fact that they're all in 3D), but I still have to ask: where's the demand?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 09:59
|
|
|
Good to see the love for Curse of Chucky. Really enjoyed that one at Frightfest earlier this year, despite the niggling issues aptly pointed out in the review. Has "We are what we are" been reviewed yet? That was one of my faves from the festival. Harsh viewing, but really great performances and atmospheric (literally) as hell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
Keanu Grieves posted:Right here. Battle of the Year looks terrible, but I won't hear an ill word spoken about Step Up: Revolution. And Footloose was Ian's favorite movie of 2011. All true things. Step Up: Revolution is not an any way my kind of movie, but the dancing in it was loving rad as hell. Also, Footloose 2011 4 lyfe
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
I think the defining feature of a 'dance movie' is the presence of a dance team and/or competition. Footloose is outside the category, and also fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
It should be noted that the dancing in Footloose '11 is 1000X better than the dancing in Footloose '86. The dancing in the original Footloose is pretty loving atrocious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
Footloose '11 >>>>>>>> Footloose '86 > Footloose '84
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
General Ironicus posted:I think the defining feature of a 'dance movie' is the presence of a dance team and/or competition. Footloose is outside the category, and also fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
So, just finished watching Short Term 12, and I really would just like to emphasize- listen to Vargo on this one. This is a film that is absolutely worth your time to see if the opportunity is available to you. Which maybe it's not. I'm at an international film festival. Regardless it's without a doubt the best American movie I've seen all year. On the subject of film festivals- do you Current Releases guys go to them? I get the impression that you do visit them as guests, but I mean, have you tried getting a press credential? Different festivals have different levels of hierarchy- of the three internationals I've been to, two gave them to me without question. It's worth your time to at least send out applications to see if you get past the filter or not. Not everyone knows what Something Awful is and if you flash enough impressive-sounding factoids at the coordinators there's a decent chance they'll just decide they're better off letting you in than risk pissing off someone with important connections.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
I've been to one or two in the past, but it was always as a spectator, no press passes or anything. The festival circuit is something I know I need to start getting into, but I keep talking myself out of it for one reason or another. Namely, it's that Current Releases isn't exactly the best outlet for covering festivals. Vargo covered one last fall, and that was a really cool change of pace for us (which got him a hilarious bit of press), but that's kind of an oddity as far as our column goes. I guess the real question is would people like to see us do more of that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 13:39
|
|
|
Actually, I should find out today whether or not I've been approved for a press credential for the Philadelphia Film Festival again. EDIT: I should note that it was pretty easy to get my press credentials last year. I had to get some stats from Garbage Day and an official "assignment" from Clumsy, but they approved me pretty quick. It's taking slightly longer this year, because they have a new method of doing it, I guess? Vargo fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Oct 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
megapuppy posted:Good to see the love for Curse of Chucky. Really enjoyed that one at Frightfest earlier this year, despite the niggling issues aptly pointed out in the review. Has "We are what we are" been reviewed yet? That was one of my faves from the festival. Harsh viewing, but really great performances and atmospheric (literally) as hell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
About Carrie: the AV Club review brought up a point about how casting Chloe Moretz as Carrie, who isn't supposed to be traditionally beautiful, makes less sense than having the main character in She's All That undesirable solely because she wears glasses. Regardless of that statement's exaggeration, it does bring up a good point about Hollywood's wildly inaccurate casting choices. Your thoughts, Sean? What I am having a hard time picturing is seeing Judy Greer in a dramatic role. She's the voice of Cheryl on Archer and was Kitty on Arrested Development- who decided on that role for her?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
If Ian's review didn't already convince you to see Escape Plan, a few points that he didn't mention stood out particularly interesting to me. He's absolutely right about this being Arnold's best acting, but the point is that everyone knew, including Sly, that this had to be Arnold. The movie simply wouldn't work with anyone else. This is one of those times when an actor's personal life and their work collide, because whenever Arnold makes a movie that even hints at political themes, you HAVE to acknowledge that he his himself a Republican politician. Meaning that this is a film which condemns the privatized prison system, as well as secret prisons like Guantanamo, by using a man whose political party has been highly supportive of such actions. Arnold's refusal to crack under torture, including waterboarding, is an important piece in this film, as well as his willingness to compromise and end a long-standing feud with a Muslim antagonist, who is actually portrayed as sympathetic and heroic. Also, I never thought a Schwarzenegger/Stallone movie would make me want to revisit Michel Foucault, but here we are.
Vargo fucked around with this message at 09:53 on Oct 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:About Carrie: the AV Club review brought up a point about how casting Chloe Moretz as Carrie, who isn't supposed to be traditionally beautiful, makes less sense than having the main character in She's All That undesirable solely because she wears glasses. Regardless of that statement's exaggeration, it does bring up a good point about Hollywood's wildly inaccurate casting choices. Your thoughts, Sean? Greer does a pretty good job though. I was surprised too. Keanu Grieves fucked around with this message at 10:06 on Oct 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 09:39
|
|
|
Judy Greer was in The Descendants, too. She's great with dramatic roles. I was not expecting the Twelve Years a Slave review to have so many rear end Spiders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
Keanu Grieves posted:I discussed this with my girlfriend partway through the movie Oh, that's allowed? I've done that a couple of times and felt like it was unethical or something. Why I have no idea, since there's always easy contextual stuff that can be missed by someone working alone. Especially since I normally review films in a second language. quote:and apparently Carrie is conventionally attractive in the book, but instead of having that beauty hidden behind glasses, it's hidden in her awful homemade dresses and her horribly shy demeanor. Ugh, I hate how fiction always does this. You know who gets bullied in real life? People who are actually ugly! It doesn't matter if your story is a deliberate obvious slam against bullies, when it re-enforces one of the main social beliefs that justifies this kind of behavior, the metaphor is too mixed to be at all useful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Oh, that's allowed? I've done that a couple of times and felt like it was unethical or something. Why I have no idea, since there's always easy contextual stuff that can be missed by someone working alone. Especially since I normally review films in a second language. And, no, it's not cheating to bounce ideas off someone more familiar with the source material. Hell, I had a former Navy man give my review of Captain Phillips the once-over to ensure I used nautical terms correctly. And, of course, the four of us read each other's reviews prior to publication. Criticism doesn't exist in a vacuum, especially with a 24-hour-if-we're-lucky turnaround.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 06:25
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Ugh, I hate how fiction always does this. You know who gets bullied in real life? People who are actually ugly! Agreed, victims of bullying are astonishingly ugly & to be honest they probably deserve it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Was the source of carrie's powers seriously her own menses? She has a period run down her leg, she can blow up a light bulb, if you dump a pig out on her she can murder a town? I've only seen parodies I never saw/read the original.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
It was supposed to vaguely mythical/metaphorical. Menarche -> Womanhood -> Power, or something along those lines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
Krinkle posted:Was the source of carrie's powers seriously her own menses? She has a period run down her leg, she can blow up a light bulb, if you dump a pig out on her she can murder a town? I've only seen parodies I never saw/read the original. She doesn't literally have blood powered telekinesis, no. It's a metaphorical coming into one's body/strange puberty changes thing. The story is definitely a product of a new novelist in the 70's, so I wouldn't bother tracking down the original book.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 16:11
|
|