|
Tars Tarkas posted:Mel Gibson writing and directing a Wild Bunch remake On the one hand a lot of squibs and blood are going to make it at least entertaining trash like the latter half of that WWII movie where the guy did not want to kill anyone On the other hand mexican stereotypes oh boy and surely Mel Gibson's life and career have been just so absolutely ruined you guys it is so hard to be a man in hollywood
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 08:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:40 |
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The argument here is extremely confused. You're saying that the plan hasn't fallen apart because they succeeded in one objective, even when allies are shooting at each other, an operative goes rogue, and they lose the person they're transporting. Yes, because they've succeeded in the objective, I conclude that they've succeeded. Because that's how words work. I'm kind of tired of this deconstructive approach of yours. Tell us what you think the film (that you've definitely seen) is saying. BravestOfTheLamps posted:I can see you've never met a tankie. I have. They don't think the solution to the drug war is 'maybe just shoot more people'
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 08:19
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:It sounds way too subtle to be effective satire. I feel like this is definitely a fair criticism of Sicario 2; the film isn't fully satirical so much as it's trying to please everyone. It depicts the right wing poo poo to please the chuds, and then sneaks in criticism of it so that leftists will also presumably be pleased (ideally without the chuds noticing). It all feels very cynical, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 08:20
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Right, this is why the Barthes piece is ultimately incoherent, although he steams a good ham here and there. dang...u got em!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 08:41
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Yes, because they've succeeded in the objective, I conclude that they've succeeded. Because that's how words work. Well yes, that's your problem. You trust words over anything else, with one line of dialogue trumping the rest of the film. Sicario 2 reflects the war in terror in miniature. Terrorist attacks inspire extralegal military operations, which are undermined by doubtful allies and an alien local populace. The roadside shootouts and ambushes involving with their car convoys even pointedly looks like they might be happening in Iraq. Objectives change, sides shift, the centre cannot hold. With that loss of unity, everyone turns out to be responsible for themselves, continuing the murky conflict without future or resolution. LORD OF BOOTY posted:I feel like this is definitely a fair criticism of Sicario 2; the film isn't fully satirical so much as it's trying to please everyone. It depicts the right wing poo poo to please the chuds, and then sneaks in criticism of it so that leftists will also presumably be pleased (ideally without the chuds noticing). You need to avoid the folly of treating the film as an author-figure. The film is just a series of sounds and images. It's the interpretation of those sounds and images that is cynical.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 08:50
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Well yes, that's your problem. You trust words over anything else, with one line of dialogue trumping the rest of the film. I know arguing in bad faith is kind of your deal, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 08:58
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:I just described the events of the film, you chucklefuck, not dialogue. The only thing in the film that presents any criticism of the events is the dialogue. *Mexican policeman desperately cradles dead colleague* "There is no criticism of the heroes anywhere in the movie"
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 09:09
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:*Mexican policeman desperately cradles dead colleague* You mean the guys who betrayed them who are instantly gunned down? The guys who's betrayal directly result in the mission being cancelled?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 09:21
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:You mean the guys who betrayed them who are instantly gunned down? The guys who's betrayal directly result in the mission being cancelled? Here you're caught in circular logic. The movie is dangerously right-wing because it features Mexican police turning on American black operatives and being killed. Morally speaking, this situation is at best extremely murky for the Americans, but since the movie is established as being a right-wing fantasy, it's actually heroic Americans shooting evil Mexicans. How do we know that the movie is a right-wing fantasy? Well, because it features Mexican police turning on American black operatives...
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 09:43
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Here you're caught in circular logic. The movie is dangerously right-wing because it features Mexican police turning on American black operatives and being killed. Morally speaking, this situation is at best extremely murky for the Americans, but since the movie is established as being a right-wing fantasy, it's actually heroic Americans shooting evil Mexicans. How do we know that the movie is a right-wing fantasy? Well, because it features Mexican police turning on American black operatives... I didn't say the first part at all. You brought up that scene as proof that their plan isn't working, a tack you've since abandoned. Since we are discussing its imagery, though...You're arguing that the film is critical of their actions because of the imagery of a mexican policeman/soldier cradling his shot comrade. The specific image, though, is a faceless man cradling an also faceless comrade who was killed in a shootout that they started. They then start another shootout, having regained the element of surprise thanks to the Americans briefly being sympathetic, which they also lose. Brolin cradles his also shot comrade, though neither are faceless and they get a closeup.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 10:00
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:I didn't say the first part at all. You brought up that scene as proof that their plan isn't working, a tack you've since abandoned. If they antagonize the Mexican goverment, their plan very much isn't working. Here you're stuck on the idea of the Mexican policemen being "faceless" and not being in close-up, which shows that... they're evil? What's actually happening is that the scene is presented from the perspective of the Americans, who see them as enemies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 10:12
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:If they antagonize the Mexican goverment, their plan very much isn't working. Again, the plan was to get the girl across the border. They do this. Five minutes later, someone working for some cartel tries to violently aprehend her. The bait has been taken and the fake kidnapping is turning into a real one. Brolin has also clearly accounted for this. He's annoyed that it happened but is not under the impression that the plan has failed. BravestOfTheLamps posted:Here you're stuck on the idea of the Mexican policemen being "faceless" and not being in close-up, which shows that... they're evil? You want to talk about imagery? Being faceless and filmed from a distance is dehumanising imagery. Are you new to film? BravestOfTheLamps posted:What's actually happening is that the scene is presented from the perspective of the Americans, who see them as enemies. Yes. You're so close to getting it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 10:16
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Again, the plan was to get the girl across the border. They do this. Five minutes later, someone working for some cartel tries to violently aprehend her. The bait has been taken and the fake kidnapping is turning into a real one. 1) You seem to have confused the order of events. The man passing by tries to grab Isabel Reyes after the shootout with the Mexican police has already compromised the plan. Snowman_McK posted:You want to talk about imagery? Being faceless and filmed from a distance is dehumanising imagery. Are you new to film? 2) The movie presents various viewpoints. Featuring an American viewpoint among others does not make the movie rightist. 3) That does not make the scene any less critical. It shows the situation as callous even when the Americans were acting in self-defence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 10:38
|
|
|
You know what is a weird outcome of Sicario 2? Josh Brolin apparently follows Isabella Moner on Instagram now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 10:43
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:1) You seem to have confused the order of events. The man passing by tries to grab Isabel Reyes after the shootout with the Mexican police has already compromised the plan. BravestOfTheLamps posted:3) That does not make the scene any less critical. It shows the situation as callous even when the Americans were acting in self-defence. It does, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 11:25
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:That's the order of events my reading is predicated on. If the bait hasn't been taken, who is that guy and what is he doing? Is one of Reyes' men brutalising his boss' daughter to get her back? You seem to be confused. Even if "the bait has been taken," the plan is falling apart. The movie portrays the shootout in critical light. After the initial surprise, the Mexican police and the cartel members are outshot and then outnumbered. When one of them ends up shooting one of the Americans, non-fatally, they're all killed. It's callous and summary. There's no fantasy of heroism in it. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 11:40 on Sep 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 11:37
|
|
|
stop replying to botl
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 14:28
|
|
|
No this is the two-person Sicario 2 thread now
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
ALFbrot posted:No this is the two-person Sicario 2 thread now Super Sicario Bros.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfMsZrrQ5Vo
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:I wish people stopped making movies based on Nick Hornby's works, hes loving shite. I don't know, his inability to write endings would seem to gel pretty well with television. Snowman_McK posted:I have. They don't think the solution to the drug war is 'maybe just shoot more people' They do, they just think the wrong people are being shot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
Big reveal here is the snake from the books is actually a lady who turned into a snake which means Rowlings is cool with bestiality in films but can't acknowledge that Dumbledore is gay in the film
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
The snake Harry murks in Chamber of commerce?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
Al Borland Korn posted:The snake Harry murks in Chamber of commerce? That or the giant snake that was a familiar to Voldermort.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
He hosed the snake?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
Rirse posted:That or the giant snake that was a familiar to Voldermort. The latter. Tars Tarkas posted:Big reveal here is the snake from the books is actually a lady who turned into a snake which means Rowlings is cool with bestiality in films but can't acknowledge that Dumbledore is gay in the film Dunno, the clips of Dumbledore looking at Grindelwald on that magic mirror that shows your deepest desire wasn't exactly subtle. Dark_Tzitzimine fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Sep 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
All that wand-holding is just foreplay
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:I feel like this is definitely a fair criticism of Sicario 2; the film isn't fully satirical so much as it's trying to please everyone. It depicts the right wing poo poo to please the chuds, and then sneaks in criticism of it so that leftists will also presumably be pleased (ideally without the chuds noticing). I made the joke to my roommate that I couldn't wait to watch Step Up 2: So You Think You Can Sicario? and sure enough the loving movie basically ends with almost the same line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
Who would have been a good choice to play Grindelwald who (as far as we know) hasn't smacked their wife around?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
holy poo poo i can't believe the biggest asian role in harry potter film history is a loyal, willing slave who gets turned into a snake (whose milk creepy baby voldemort drinks from later).
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
apparently she's under some weird snake blood curse thing that has never been mentioned before
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:holy poo poo i can't believe the biggest asian role in harry potter film history is a loyal, willing slave who gets turned into a snake (whose milk creepy baby voldemort drinks from later). Man the movies got weird with cho chang
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
At least she doesnt turn into a dragon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Did they just saw what happened in Shadow of War with the spider and went "hold my beer".
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Who would have been a good choice to play Grindelwald who (as far as we know) hasn't smacked their wife around? Elijah Wood
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Who would have been a good choice to play Grindelwald who (as far as we know) hasn't smacked their wife around? Why didn't they just stick with Colin Farrell?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Who would have been a good choice to play Grindelwald who (as far as we know) hasn't smacked their wife around? An unknown theatre actor. If I were trying to establish a new iconic villain, I'd try to go the Alan Rickman route and find somebody with talent who hasn't done any films yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
What films have flopped where they cast nothing but established (and often aging) stars but made no effort to introduce anyone new? Or at least hesitated to give any weight to upcoming actors?
Inspector Gesicht fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Sep 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
Inspector Gesicht posted:What films have flopped where they cast nothing but established (and often aging) stars but made no effort to introduce anyone new? Or at least hesitated to give any weight to upcoming actors? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:40 |
|
|
Is Russell Crowe holding an invisible cane?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 21:57
|
|