|
Rap Music and Dope posted:What are good movies that deal with "whats it mean to be human?". Transhumanism? Is that the word? Ambiguity preferred but not required. IIRC, AI: Artificial Intelligence handles this pretty well.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:00 |
|
|
Rap Music and Dope posted:What are good movies that deal with "whats it mean to be human?". Transhumanism? Is that the word? Ambiguity preferred but not required. It makes a simple story.   Maybe this one is about it in reverse or something, Transpuppetism. Tenzarin fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:I saw it, and frankly I'm ready: the director of it is a son of a bitch but that's not the point. 40% of you white Americans will elect a man for president who is an avowed rapist and white nationalist. For president! Let alone a man making a mediocre semi fictionalized nat turner biopic for you to concern troll in your clickbait articles. The Roman Polanskis and Woody Allens of the world persevere, and god knows how many celebrities actually directly responsible for paid off manslaughters. How many of you pieces of garbage still watch and adore the films of Klaus Klinski? That's not the point. Demographics dictate that another reckoning is coming. I await it with baited breath. We've already elected, at minimum, three rapist presidents, depending on how you feel about having an affair with a slave (it's rape btw)
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:We've already elected, at minimum, three rapist presidents, depending on how you feel about having an affair with a slave (it's rape btw) Leonard Bernstein even wrote a song about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Yaws posted:How is Carpenters Christine? Alexandra Paul gives one of the worst line readings in cinematic history with her "God, I hate rock and roll."
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Re: transhumanism suggestions Lucy Transcendence Bicentennial Man They're all movies about the boundaries between human and AI (not literally an AI in Lucy, but pretty close to it at times).
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Rap Music and Dope posted:What are good movies that deal with "whats it mean to be human?". Transhumanism? Is that the word? Ambiguity preferred but not required. I guess in a lot of cases that's simply a matter of interpretation, but I'd argue these could, to one degree or another, probably satisfy the requirements: 2001: A Space Odyssey Solaris Robocop Pinocchio (On the "good movies" requirement, it doesn't really resonate with me for some reason, but there's no denying it has its admirers) Beauty and the Beast (go for the Cocteau version) The Fly with a bonus TV suggestion: I Sing the Body Electric, a Ray Bradbury-written episode of The Twilight Zone (and, in fact, there'll be any number of TZs that touch on that theme).
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Johnny Five is alive too you guys!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Surely Prometheus counts, too, though whether that's "good" or not is in the eye of the goon
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
Ex Machina
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
Also, while it was kind of underwelming, Automata, with Antonio Banderas deals with similar themes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
Omega Doom, starring Rutger Hauer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Slipstream, with Bob Peck, Mark Hamill, Bill Paxton, F. Murray Abraham, Robbie Coltrane, and Ben Kingsley.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Hot Bot with Zack Pearlman, Doug Haley, Cynthia Kirchner, David Shackelford, Anthony Anderson, Danny Masterson, and Donald Faison
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Nemesis with Olivier Gruner, Tim Thomerson, Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, Brian James, and Deborah Shelton
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
The Academy-Award-nominated Heartbeeps with Andy Kaufman, Bernadette Peters, and Randy Quaid
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
What's the most at odds you've been with the consensus critical view? I'm watching Sausage Party and it's blowing my mind how something so bad got 83% on RT. It's also sad how many people I like are involved with it, but I guess films like these are an easy paycheck for most involved. Maybe if I was 12 again I'd dig it, as no doubt that's the target audience.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Way of the Gun is probably the movie with the lowest tomato rating that I love. Avengers is probably the highest rated movie that I hate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:What's the most at odds you've been with the consensus critical view? I'm watching Sausage Party and it's blowing my mind how something so bad got 83% on RT. It's also sad how many people I like are involved with it, but I guess films like these are an easy paycheck for most involved. One that comes to mind is Maniac (2013). It has a 49%, yet I would consider it one of the best horror movies of the last decade. I guess lots of mainstream critics are turned off by grisly horror, regardless of how masterfully done it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Way of the Gun is probably the movie with the lowest tomato rating that I love. Avengers is probably the highest rated movie that I hate. Holy poo poo, why does Way of the Gun have such a low rating? at least the audience rating is respectable. That's a loving fantastic film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Snak posted:Holy poo poo, why does Way of the Gun have such a low rating? at least the audience rating is respectable. That's a loving fantastic film. There's no real protagonists, everyone is a horrible person except Juliette Lewis and she has no agency. Also it's lack of exposition could make parts a bit confusing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Ryan Phillippe and Benicio del Toro are definitely the protagonists... Edit: and your right about Juliet Lewis having no agency for most of the story, but her 30 seconds of agency at the beginning of the film is what makes the rest of the story happen. She makes a choice that sets off the plot. Snak fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Oct 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:What's the most at odds you've been with the consensus critical view? Le Samouraï is at 100% on RT. I could not understand why things were not happening at all during the entire movie. There was a 10 minute sequence where a couple of policemen went into an apartment, placed a bug behind some curtains, and left, without exchanging a word. Ten loving minutes for a scene that should have been 20 seconds. The whole movie is like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 22:08
|
|
man
|
loving millennials 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
2001: A Space Odyssey should have been, at most, 27 minutes long. Why did we need all those shots of space ships and monkeys where literally nothing happens?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:What's the most at odds you've been with the consensus critical view? I'm watching Sausage Party and it's blowing my mind how something so bad got 83% on RT. It's also sad how many people I like are involved with it, but I guess films like these are an easy paycheck for most involved. Probably the 1998 Avengers. I love that film. The studio editing hurts it but it's got a whimsical, fantastical quality that sets it apart from other action films of the era. Not much on the "overrated" side. I didn't much like The Man Who Laughs I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
I thought The Revenant was pretty lousy. Leo's performance in particular.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
dokmo posted:Le Samouraï is at 100% on RT. I could not understand why things were not happening at all during the entire movie. There was a 10 minute sequence where a couple of policemen went into an apartment, placed a bug behind some curtains, and left, without exchanging a word. Ten loving minutes for a scene that should have been 20 seconds. The whole movie is like that. I loving can't even.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Probably the 1998 Avengers. Take out the horrifying 990's cgi and it still stands up. Leave it in it's a shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
If you're a moderately fit actor cast for say, a superhero movie or CW show, do studios generally pay for the insane getting-ripped training regime or is it up to you to invest in / your agent to bargain over?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
Chop Sunni posted:If you're a moderately fit actor cast for say, a superhero movie or CW show, do studios generally pay for the insane getting-ripped training regime or is it up to you to invest in / your agent to bargain over? Not sure about the TV shows, but I'm almost positive the movie studios pay for trainers and dieticians. Alexander Skarsgard had an incredibly expensive private chef for Tarzan who wasn't allowed to use any of the ingredients that make food taste good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
I just wrote a big long YouTube comment (I know, I know) about a way of interpreting The Fountain that I prefer over the standard reading, and was curious if anyone else subscribes to that theory. My preferred interpretation is that, as a way grieving, the Tom finishes Izzies' book by creating the fictional astronaut version of Tom. I know that the popular (and in my opinion surface-level) interpretation of the film is that the astronaut's story is the true continued story of the present day version of Tom, and that only the conquistador's story is fictional - but to me it feels like the film is attempting to be more poetic and metaphorical than that. After Izzie's funeral, Tom finds himself in deep grief. As he grieves, he remembers the life that he and Izzie shared, lending to the nonlinear nature of the film. He begins to understand that her book was about their relationship ("My conquistador, always conquering"), about how she understood his need to protect her (the fictional Tomas's dedication and love), and that she not just forgave him for not being with her toward the end, but that she thinks it is noble and beautiful that he wants to try. At different points in the film, Tom both accepts and rejects Izzie's offer to go for a walk. The one where he stays and opens up Donovan represents what Tom actually did in the past, and the one where he rejects that part of himself and follows her outside represents what the grieving Tom now knows: he should have been with her toward he end, as Lillian was. So he plants a tree on her grave with a seed, and then begins to finish her book. The only way he knows how to finish the book is by filtering it through his own grief and inserting himself, Izzie, and their cancer journey into the story so that he can craft a fantasy: a future where that seed grows and becomes Izzy again, and he can fulfill her dream of them meeting together again in Xiabulba. He combines her writing, their lives together, and his fantasy into a single narrative - essentially, the text of the film as we viewed it is that narrative. She is the author of the conquistador portions of the book, he is the author of the present and science-fiction portions of the book, and they are combined together into a singular narrative that acts as closure for Tom. In his ending to the story, the character of Tom never gets over Izzie's death. He considers death a disease and becomes obsessed with it. That version of himself succeeds and lives for hundreds of years, eventually taking the tree that grew from Izzie's grave into space, destined for Xiabulba so that they could be together again in death. This is why the ring reappears out of nowhere for the astronaut directly before the supernova: it's Tom forgiving himself for losing the ring, giving himself the closure he could not get in life. In the scientific, logical world that is set up by this film, the ring could not suddenly appear in the brambles of a space ship hundreds of years after it was lost in a laboratory. That's because it's a fictional metaphor that present-day Tom has written. Astronaut Tom's plan wasn't to resurrect Izzie via visiting Xiabulba, it was simply a symbol of the real Tom accepting her dream of what the afterlife could be: the two them meeting again at Xiabulba to live forever, now filtered through his scientific mind. It would be far too coincidental that the actual tree of life his wife just happens to be writing a book about truly exists and that his laboratory just happened to get a sample of it from the rainforest. This is because it doesn't exist, and the lab doesn't have a sample of it. It's Tom imagining that the Guatemalan tree lab sample is the actual tree of life, building a literal connection between the real version of Tom and the fictional version that Izzy had written. This is why the astronaut appears in the temple as First Father - it's Tom's writing, finishing her conquistador's character arc through his own means, proving his acceptance of her death. Her version of Tom (Tomas) and his version of Tom (astronaut) then die the same way as both the real version of Izzie and Tom's fictionalized version of her (the tree). All die exactly as First Father did in the Mayan book that Izzie showed Tom in the museum: death as an act of creation. This is Tom understanding what Izzie was going through as she was dying, finally hearing what she was trying to tell him about her vision of the afterlife and why she wasn't afraid anymore. The film isn't simply about accepting your own death, the film is about not letting grief consume you. It's Tom understanding that death isn't something to be defeated, it's something to be accepted, it's beautiful, it's an act of creation. Is there anything in this that wouldn't make more sense than that popular interpretation? I know the film is intentionally open to interpretation, and in fact parts of this could be simultaneously true and untrue, but it just seems like most people simply subscribe to a surface-level reading that leaves out a lot of the film's complexity. I normally would just go "it's both, the film was meant to simultaneously be true for both interpretations" but Aronofsky insists that there's one correct interpretation in interviews and commentary. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Oct 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:I just wrote a big long YouTube comment (I know, I know) about a way of interpreting The Fountain that I prefer over the standard reading, and was curious if anyone else subscribes to that theory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
I always assumed all three stories were simultaneously true and untrue, Izzie's story was a fictional account of real people. I haven't actually seen the movie since it was in theaters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Yeah, astronaut story is definitely metaphorical. I'm not sold on it being him literally completing her book so much as just representing his denying and eventually accepting her death and his grief, but the meaning is pretty much the same either way. It drove me up the wall back when it first came out and all the reviews talked about how it was about reincarnation and time travel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
Remulak posted:Take out the horrifying 990's cgi and it still stands up. Leave it in it's a shitshow. eh, the mechanical bees look fake as Hell but the CG isn't so extensive as to ruin it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
i watched the lost boys last night for the first time and that is basically the perfect movie. was it succesfull when it came out because im surprised there was never a sequel
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Empress Brosephine posted:i watched the lost boys last night for the first time and that is basically the perfect movie. was it succesfull when it came out because im surprised there was never a sequel
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Let's be honest here....
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:00 |
|
|
Lost Boys just sounds like a McElroy Bros joint now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 21:47
|
|
