|
Onomarchus posted:Prof. Clumsy needs to see Little Children if he hasn't already. I haven't.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:12 |
|
|
I can't bring myself to read that spoiler tag. What if I'm spoiled??? ::hands shake as the mouse is slowly moved towards the black void::
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
I've messaged most of you already but I wanted to say in here how much I enjoyed all of the contributions to the article! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Thanks for all the kind words. I'm blushing again. Assholes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:I am really confused by the use of a spoiler tag here. No matter what angle I think about why you used one, it doesn't make sense. I thought in the context of this thread that if I just said the name in that post it would be obvious that there's a castration in the movie. Looking back on it, probably the most that would have been obvious was that there was something majorly penis-related in it, which, given the film as a whole, is still unexpected. Maybe I was or am overthinking the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
It's just sort of funny because the only way to know that you're not going to get spoilered by revealing what's behind the tags is to have seen every movie ever made. It's basically a question of "am I willing to be spoiled about the possible presence of castration in some movie I've never seen," (spoiler for Little Children) rather than being something you can reveal because you know you've seen the film in question. It's actually specifically prohibited over in CineD, but I guess this is GBS - no rules, just right - so you can't be expected to know that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Would you guys ever consider doing a Not-So-Current-Releases where you give a similar treatment to older movies? I remember you doing it for Jurassic Park for its re-release and I really enjoyed going back to that movie and watching it as an older viewer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
N. Senada posted:Would you guys ever consider doing a Not-So-Current-Releases where you give a similar treatment to older movies? I remember you doing it for Jurassic Park for its re-release and I really enjoyed going back to that movie and watching it as an older viewer. Most of the time if we do this, it's because we didn't have enough films this week, and we made me sit through a Netflix Instant Viewer's Choice, where people vote on our Facebook page to make me suffer. If we ever get off our asses and make our own blog, then yeah, I can see this being a thing. You can also read Ian and I's contributions it BigBudgetSequel's site, Wag The Movie. I've also done guest spots on podcasts talking about animated films that I can link to when I'm not at work. Also, if you want to keep up on all these extra projects, it's a good idea to like Current Releases on Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
N. Senada posted:Would you guys ever consider doing a Not-So-Current-Releases where you give a similar treatment to older movies? I remember you doing it for Jurassic Park for its re-release and I really enjoyed going back to that movie and watching it as an older viewer. We've considered it before and it can be nice to write about old films with the benefit of time. I was quite pleased with my review of Phantom Menace for its re-release, but it's a kind of a drop in the ocean to even bother writing about Star Wars on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Sometimes it comes down to whether or not we find anything compelling to say about a re-released film. A couple years ago I was all set to write up Finding Nemo 3D, but after seeing it I just couldn't come up with a good way to spin that review. It's still the same Finding Nemo people know and love.  Then again, Finding Nemo has neither the age of a Jurassic Park nor the negative legacy of The Phantom Menace. It's still fairly modern and well-regarded, relatively speaking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
yeah, contributions to Wag the Movie are nice. People should do it more. Especially people who are no longer moderating a movie themed forum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:We've considered it before and it can be nice to write about old films with the benefit of time. I was quite pleased with my review of Phantom Menace for its re-release, but it's a kind of a drop in the ocean to even bother writing about Star Wars on the internet. What about older movies that have more-or-less been forgotten by the sands of time, but still have something about them that's kind of historically notable aside from sounding terrible? When I have no new stuff for the current week I tend to just review older movies at random, looking at films which seem to have some sort of pedigree, given the cast and crew, but which today have basically been ignored in retrospect. I personally find doing this kind of work to be a lot more fulfilling than reviewing famous things like Oldboy and Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, simply because aside from my reviews very little information on these older films even exists. The equivalent of that in American movies..? I don't know. Timer comes to mind as a movie which received almost no critical attention upon release, and only limited reviews once it got popular on Netflix. But I think that's the kind of film that could benefit a lot from critical analysis, positive or negative, because it's at least trying to accomplish something even if your mileage may vary on how well it's executed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Vargo posted:Also, if you want to keep up on all these extra projects, it's a good idea to like Current Releases on Facebook. Already have.  But you should listen to what some guy is saying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Speaking of Not-So-Current-Releases, how would you guys feel about the possibility of doing some kind of collaboration(s) in this newest of years? Not sure exactly what yet, but it's something we've been kicking around - could be fun to mix things a little bit 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:Sometimes it comes down to whether or not we find anything compelling to say about a re-released film. A couple years ago I was all set to write up Finding Nemo 3D, but after seeing it I just couldn't come up with a good way to spin that review. It's still the same Finding Nemo people know and love. I've never seen it. So a review would be interesting, though that specific ship has probably sailed. There's always someone that hasn't seen what you're reviewing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
If I'm being honest, I like seeing reviews for movies I've already watched to try and catch things I missed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
Trillaphon posted:Speaking of Not-So-Current-Releases, how would you guys feel about the possibility of doing some kind of collaboration(s) in this newest of years? Not sure exactly what yet, but it's something we've been kicking around - could be fun to mix things a little bit I'd be up for that. The film I'm reviewing this week would be perfect cannon fodder for you guys. Maybe you could take a look at a couple of the awful movies we reviewed a while back, and we could drop in with additional commentary. effectual posted:I've never seen it. So a review would be interesting, though that specific ship has probably sailed. There's always someone that hasn't seen what you're reviewing. N. Senada posted:If I'm being honest, I like seeing reviews for movies I've already watched to try and catch things I missed. Fair enough. I also remember Nemo took a backseat that week to properly explaining how terrible that Timothy Green movie was. I think it'd be fun to start reviewing older stuff on a semi-regular basis, it's just a matter of finding the right avenue for it. It's kinda hard to justify when your column is called "Current Releases". Look at me, Mr. Excuses over here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:I'd be up for that. The film I'm reviewing this week would be perfect cannon fodder for you guys. Maybe you could take a look at a couple of the awful movies we reviewed a while back, and we could drop in with additional commentary. There's also nothing stopping us from just writing and posting pieces somewhere else and like, advertising them on our Facebook page. It's an idea we've kicked around for a while, but we (or I) just figured that the only reason people read us anyway was the Something Awful name. If the readership would follow elsewhere, then maybe that's worth looking into again. And yeah, I too would be down for Awful collaborations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Trillaphon posted:Speaking of Not-So-Current-Releases, how would you guys feel about the possibility of doing some kind of collaboration(s) in this newest of years? Not sure exactly what yet, but it's something we've been kicking around - could be fun to mix things a little bit Yeah, let's do it!
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Vargo posted:There's also nothing stopping us from just writing and posting pieces somewhere else and like, advertising them on our Facebook page. It's an idea we've kicked around for a while, but we (or I) just figured that the only reason people read us anyway was the Something Awful name. If the readership would follow elsewhere, then maybe that's worth looking into again. I'm not arguing against it. If people are willing to read it, and from the sound of this thread they are, then let's see about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:http://www.avclub.com/article/the-best-films-of-2013-200655 After seeing that A- rating from the A.V. Club and watching Frances Ha on Netflix (and despising it), I looked around online and saw that nearly everyone else was slobbering all over it, too. I'm grateful to learn that Current Releases exists and hates this movie as well. "This is 86 minutes of an unlikable person being awkward and selfish and annoying and then wondering why everyone else is more successful and happy than she is." What a tremendous description. I enjoyed Frances Ha significantly less than The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, which I didn't think was very good, don't remember at all, and only saw because American Hustle was sold out and there weren't any other movies starting for another hour. Hell, the one element of the movie I do remember is that the cinematography was noticeably more impressive than Frances Ha. gently caress Frances Ha. Fake edit: The A.V. Club also did an interview with the director, which was just awful. The highlights include the interviewer suggesting that the protagonist is an "anti-hipster" and asserting that there is "nary an unlikable character" in the film, with Baumbach replying that Frances is "a hero."
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:I'd be up for that. The film I'm reviewing this week would be perfect cannon fodder for you guys. Maybe you could take a look at a couple of the awful movies we reviewed a while back, and we could drop in with additional commentary. Drop us a line by PM, or e-mail our SA address! There's lots of different things we could do that might be fun/interesting. There's certainly a whole netherworld of straight-to-video features that are technically "current releases" but could easily fall into our crosshairs as well, so that might be a natural place to collaborate. It might also be fun to see what you guys could do with a selection of movies from our hit list, say a sampler of hits from a B-movie megastar like Tim Thomerson, or Deathstalkers 2 through 4. Or we could just all unleash our collective undying hatred for stupid talking animal features on this masterpiece: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2757592/
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
In other news, About Time is just about the creepiest goddamn movie of 2013.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
Have everyone review Foodfight!Hydrogen posted:Or we could just all unleash our collective undying hatred for stupid talking animal features on this masterpiece: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2757592/ I had a strong feeling of what was on the other side of that link. I was right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
I know I  -ed about historical accuracy before regarding Argo, but I'm going to take a moment to do it again about Lone Survivor.I know somebody from the current releases crew (can't remember which, sorry) mentioned a youtube channel that featured the technical gaffes or continuity errors in films - found it, you guys linked to this article sometime last year. Their point was that this isn't effective criticism, pointing it out distracts from actually talking about the film. When it comes to being historically accurate, I feel the same way. The little differences do not mean a whole lot. In Lone Survivor, Mark Wahlberg gets a bullet removed when there was none in reality. Fine, whatever, as long it supports the narrative or develops the character or does something, that seems totally okay. Even the exaggerated number of taliban soldiers present, I'm willing to overlook although Keanu Grieves' point about othering the enemy demonstrates why this is a bad thing. Those little historical inaccuracies aren't too bad and emphasizing them isn't always helpful. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter from the American perspective whether there were 20 or 50 bad, brown men shooting at our heroes. The more relevant historical questions are, Why are soldiers there? Why do the taliban want to kill them? I want to see this movie (partially because I'm shocked at how much praise Grieves gave it) because I want to know if it answers these questions. The problem with historical accuracy is when it misinforms about how and why people would do things. These are spoilers for the film, I guess, so don't read it if you want to know about all of the firefights. From what I've read, there's a big battle against the taliban in a local village. The taliban start killing the locals who assisted the main dude. The cavalry finally arrives and fights off the horde. None of that happened. The taliban did not fight the village and why would they? In the film, it makes for a dramatic final fight before the Americans save their own, but it doesn't make sense. The taliban cannot risk the ire of locals, they need local support in order to function. But these roles allow Americans to create convenient categories to put these brown others into: there are the helpless victims who can do nothing against the taliban, our local villagers; there are the conspiring locals who assist the enemy, the shepherds; and there are the enemy, the people seeking to do direct harm to our soldiers. Demonstrating the taliban as murdering locals for harboring Americans when they did not is not the same as showing a bullet in a leg when there actually is not one. It allows the viewer to understand the other in particular ways, ways which discourage nuance. This is not to say that filmmakers should glorify the Taliban, or not depict how brutally they act as political and military leaders. But there's more happening here than just a firefight. I imagine the movie deals with the physical and psychological struggles of a lone survivor, and maybe that's all they're trying to do. But that it takes place with real people in a real war, the film should try to more earnestly depict the agents involved and the decisions they made. What struck me about Grieves' review is the final remark about "distill[ing] the truth of these conflicts." I would actually like to hear more of the reviewer's perspective as a veteran examining the film. I like the suggestion that the films should more honestly depict the brutality of warfare but the reference to Platoon threw me a little. Vietnam war movies do a pretty tragic job at depicting the Vietnamese side of things. This is the first film I've heard of that actually tries to get into that perspective. I want to know more about what the three-dimensional perspective is for us. Is it the one that explains our own actions? Is it the one that allows us to understand the enemy's? Regardless, Grieves' review has me more interested in seeing this movie than I had before. Thanks for giving me impetus to start thinking about American depictions of war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
I debated addressing some of the points you make in my own review, but it was growing past 1,300 words and I didn't want to spoil the last bit about the village for anyone who doesn't know the "true" story. So here it goes: I didn't like how they handled the village invasion either. I thought the language barriers between Suttrell and the kid were a little too cutesy and, by that point in this intense film, we don't need comic relief. Obviously, the filmmakers felt otherwise. Also, I feel like the whole sequence, even if it were 100% true, isn't given its due -- it's a late, small attempt to compensate for the jingoistic one-sidedness of the first 90 minutes. Basically, the film changes channels, from Black Hawk Down to Witness, and that's jarring. Maybe I didn't make the point well enough in my review, but Lone Survivor doesn't really answer those questions. Because the filmmakers assume the war in Afghanistan is fresh in everyone's minds, there's a distinct lack of context and motive given to the enemy. That's my other problem with the film. It's just white hats and black hats for most of the film. The only thing that could've made it worse was an insert shot of WTC2 going down during the credits. Without that context, I wonder how this film will play a century from now. As for my nod to Platoon, I feel like that was the first Vietnam movie to see the war honestly, even if it didn't include the NVA perspective. At least it's willing to show soldiers behaving in a decidedly "un-American" way, as they commit their war crimes and smoke pot to alleviate the horror and all the other poo poo they do (it's been a few years, and I have a hard time watching it after my time in Iraq, so I can't remember much more than that). And, no, I don't think technical/historical accuracy should stand in the way of a good film -- unless, as with The Hurt Locker, to be even remotely technically/historically accurate would leave the film without a functioning plot. It's actually surprising how much Lone Survivor gets right. Peter Berg never served in the military, but this is the second time, after The Kingdom, that I've marveled at his ability to construct verisimilitude. But there are times when accuracy errors speak to the politics of the film, as with the problematic parts of Lone Survivor; by beefing up the number of Taliban fighters, stripping them of any identifiable characteristics (besides evil Arab goatees) and showing them stealing from the dead, Lone Survivor is reducing them to a one-dimensional horde of archetypal villains. The cinematography, choreography, acting, etc., elevate a movie that is otherwise kinda troubling. I'm not going to go so far and say it's this generation's Birth of a Nation, but it presents the same problem: How do you fairly evaluate the movie that advances the formal characteristics of cinema despite its lovely politics?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Sorry if this is considered offtopic but I need some help with the Minority Report joke on the Legend of Hercules review. I'm sure I've seen some stand up comedian do that bit on youtube and want to see it again but I can't remember any detail that would help me find it. It's actually driving me nuts now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
shimmy posted:Sorry if this is considered offtopic but I need some help with the Minority Report joke on the Legend of Hercules review. I'm sure I've seen some stand up comedian do that bit on youtube and want to see it again but I can't remember any detail that would help me find it. It's actually driving me nuts now. CONGRATULATIONS! YOU WIN! That is a routine by Stewart Lee about "the rap singers." We just replaced "rap singers" with "Hercules." It was Sean's idea, mostly. Kind of. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkI9h7EGYvI
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Thanks! Good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
How did Berg go from sympathizing with the "other" with Battleship...to Lone Survivor?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
Aliens, man. Nothing unites us like aliens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
Has there ever been a good grim-dark action-fantasy film? And are they eventhat profitable ? It's so samey and each one just seems like a straight clone of a previous one that it's just dull.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
I feel like the first two Underworld films were super-profitable, and even more so on DVD sales. It's BECAUSE they were so successful that we have to deal with all of these clones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
So, you don't mention the whole "brother 'vetting' his sister's boyfriend to see if he's worthy of marrying her is so loving sexist" part of Ride-Along because it's a given, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Senior Woodchuck posted:So, you don't mention the whole "brother 'vetting' his sister's boyfriend to see if he's worthy of marrying her is so loving sexist" part of Ride-Along because it's a given, right? Pretty much, yeah. Ride Along takes two whole seconds to address that situation by having Ice Cube say he and his sister were orphans and that he always had to look out for her, but the movie really doesn't care. It just wants to move on as quickly as possible so we can watch Kevin Hart wrestle a naked man covered in honey.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Why the gently caress even make the script for Ride Along so convoluted? Why not just make Kevin Hart a wannabe cop and have Ice Cube try to scare him out of it. Done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Because then you can't appeal to all four quadrants. Ride Along has already made a shitload of money, so maybe there's some wisdom in that formula. Bad wisdom, but profitable wisdom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Vargo totally summed up three of the biggest of many awful tropes that big-time Hollywood movies have indulged in over the past decade that apparently appear in I, Frankenstein.
There have been movies that subvert this trope- Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and Warm Bodies come to mind- but they're few and far between all the serious trash that the big studios keep pumping out. They would do well to take the Roger Rabbit test to these kinds of movies- they should make it only if it's funny. Or at the very least, only if it has a modicum of a sense of humor. And by the way- no, Underworld was not influential, but it was the next-best thing: profitable. Edit: After reading the Devil's Due review, the last trope also applies, but it also has the inverse of the second trope that's also been popularized by Meyer- women need to uphold a feminine ideal, or they become punished. get that OUT of my face fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Jan 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:[*]Supernatural romance where the supernatural creature has some minor physical blemish, which instantly makes him (and make no mistake, this character is always male) "hideous." You caused this, Stephenie Meyer. Hey come on, be fair. They've been doing this crap with the Phantom of the Opera for decades. It's not like we went from Lon Chaney the repulsive movie monster to Gerard Butler with a bad sunburn overnight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:12 |
|
|
The Humpback of Notre Dame remake could be some hot bodybuilder dude with massive traps
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 19:53
|
|
