|
Sporadic posted:With Aguirre, the Wrath of God which is the original audio? German or English? I think it's like some of the Italian Spaghetti Westerns where the language is all dubbed from an internation cast. However, even though they were shot speaking English, the German dub is the intention.
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2008 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:03 |
|
|
The story that The Thing comes from was originally a pre-war short story, "Who goes there". That was adapted to a somewhat traditional 50s monster movie in 1951 as "The Thing from Another World". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Goes_There http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0044121/
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2008 08:38
|
|
|
nitty gritty titty posted:What are the major differences between Blade Runner: Final Cut and the older versions? I have the Director's Cut on DVD, and have been considering picking up the Final Cut, but not sure if it's needed. Get it. Get it. Getitgetitgetit. There are a number of reasons I say this (getit). It has a remarkable transfer (getit). If you pick up the BluRay version, you get all the other versions (getit). If not, the four disc that includes the old Director's Cut is only $23 on Amazon right now (get it). And the supplements for all the versions are substantial and worthwhile (getit). For a breakdown in terms of scenes (might be more than you want to know if you want to see it), Wikipedia has it detailed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_(versions)#Differences Here are some screens of the differences as well. http://www.schnittberichte.com/schnittbericht.php?ID=4589
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2008 13:45
|
|
|
Barry Lemonade posted:Probably a stupid question, but in Momento how does the main character know the man he's looking for is named John (or James) G.? Additionally, the person calling him on the phone is Teddy, right? Teddy is indeed on the phone. Teddy actually feeds him the information that the "killer" is John/James G. He does so becuause Teddy wants to get a drug dealer killed and off the streets and figures that he'd be the perfect hitman. The drug dealer, Jimmy Grants, didn't have anything to do with the rape of his wife but he's like a guided missile and follows notes implicitly. Including his own notes intended to turn the tables on James "Teddy" Gammel.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2008 03:38
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Except it would just have had to been one line and the scene doesn't really make sense as it stands. I think the specifics of what he's selling in that scene is completely irrelevant. It's just to paint him as some kind of illegal fringe dweller and deliver the white rabbit lead in and allow the Agent Smith interrogation to have substance regarding Anderson's second life. Saying what he's selling is hardly necessary for the scene to make sense. Who cares if it's MP3s, secret porno tapes, bootlegs of Ebaumsworld, or credit card numbers? The scene really makes no sense to you without knowing?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2008 00:34
|
|
|
I recall hearing a DVD commentary (can't begin to think of which one) where some director said they stuck with a weaker take of a scene specifically because it had one of those serendipitous occurrences like the Alien 4 basketball shot. Another one that springs to mind is in The Usual Suspects where Redfoot flicks a cigarette and it hits Stephen Baldwin perfectly in the eyeball. Glorious.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2008 05:08
|
|
|
Hello Pity posted:At the end of 3:10 to Yuma why does Crowe's character shoot his own men? At first I thought it was obvious. But the more I think about it any reason I can come up with doesn't seem to make complete sense. I just wondered if there was an obvious reason I missed or it was supposed to be a little ambiguous Post is a bit old, but I took it that not only had he come to respect the man for flying in the face of death in favor of his family and duty, but I think he considered the impossible task "done" when they got to the train. To not get on the train would be to invalidate all of that man's life and I don't think he wanted to be party to that. Of course, being on the train isn't the end of his life. He can be party to this incredible victory and never be locked away in Yuma.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2008 07:55
|
|
|
Grape The Alex posted:I wonder how I got that memory if it never happened. I don't know. Have you been to Vietnam? roffle posted:What the gently caress is the deal with the end of American Psycho? Bateman is completly psychotic and has essentially been living out most of the movie as pure fantasy. As the film progresses, he goes further off the rails running through hallways with a chainsaw and having ATMs request kittens. By the end it kind of comes crashing down as his phone call to the lawyer provides independent corroboration that he hasn't killed Paul Allen after all. There is a case to be made that some of his actions are real but you really can never know. Realistically, since Paul Allen is the trigger, it's likely he's just a whackjob that beats up prostitutes and dreams of killing his peers. Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Jul 20, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2008 11:44
|
|
|
-Atom- posted:Somebody surely has seen these movies and know who the actors are? I suspect you're thinking of the Barbarian Brothers. http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0666795/ http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0666947/
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2008 01:46
|
|
|
roffle posted:So, for American Psycho-- Well, that'd be a new one. The only alternate cohesive theory I've heard put forth is that that Bateman commits the crimes but total apathy keeps him from being caught. Just like prostitutes aren't missed when they're killed, nobody misses 80s execs either. They're so interchangeable that nobody knows when one dies or disappears and they even mistake one of them for another. That theory requires some gymnastics to survive the final act anyway, because of the lawyer phone call and the increasingly surreal experience Patrick has.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2008 07:10
|
|
|
ZenMaster posted:EDIT: Oh, and anyone want to tackle the French Connection ending for me? Yeah, not sure what you're missing. The bad guy gets away.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2008 02:27
|
|
|
mikewozere posted:Why are some films shot with a green tinge throughout? An obvious example is the Matrix, although the directors have explained the varying colours for the real world and the Matrix, but I've also seen this technique used in Bourne Supremacy and I think it was also used in Black Hawk Down. Everything just has a slightly green element to it. The color isn't particularly unique, but tinting is a way to influence the viewer. It's usually done for thematic or atmospheric reasons but it can also be representative of some subtext. As an example, various sections of the movie Traffic have rather extreme tints to them to accompany different filming techniques to give the various storylines and locations a unique feel. Specific to your questions, The Matrix does it to evoke the old computer monitor's black and green color scheme to represent the view from inside the computer. The scenes on the Neb don't have the same color tint because the real world isn't artificial. For Black Hawk Down, it's a day for night scheme to give the audience visibility to night-time fighting so that they can follow the action more clearly.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2008 22:50
|
|
|
It was 1715, per IMDb trivia.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2008 07:09
|
|
|
ZenMaster posted:Whee... so why the two hours of build up for nothing?[/spoiler] Because it's gritty and real, mostly. The small fish get caught, Doyle gets in a friendly fire incident while the mastermind gets away.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2008 02:56
|
|
|
Lao Tsu posted:I need this answered or I won't go on living. He was exhausted from Luke whipping on him and needed to brace himself of fall flat on the ground? 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2008 17:19
|
|
|
I won't speak about the legal ramifications of actors doing their stunts (but I assume that the lawyers do make them sign liability waivers) but I remember that the special effects and pyro work in Backdraft was pretty incredible. They were supposedly able to repeat a lot of the apparantly catastrophic stuff and had fine control of the fire effects so they could do amazing stuff with people right there.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2008 21:43
|
|
|
Retinend posted:If his lawnmower didn't break down (with the black smoke), then why did he wait for so long and look so heartbroken? and if his lawnmower did break down, then how did he just start driving again? I'm working off memory but I don't recall the exchange being wordless. I recall the guy on the passing tractor telling him that sometimes they need to sit for a while and so he gives it a try and it turns over. Edit: Here's the exchange How you doin'...? Not too good. This thing's just tired. Is there anything I can do to help you? Well, I don't know. It just quit on me. Why don't you try her again?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2008 17:43
|
|
|
There may be one or two trailers "attached" to a specific movie, and that may mean actually physically attached. I think they also ship several other trailers along with the movie that may be shown at the discretion of the theater. That's why you'll often see a different set of trailers if you see the same movie in the same theater on different screens. They'll generally ship out trailers that are thematically relevant to the movie itself, sometimes with the same actor or just "family appropriate" or "blockbuster". I think when you get to tiny arthouses, they cobble trailers from all over so you'll sometimes get some awesomely sexy ones before PG rated movies.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2008 17:01
|
|
|
Righ'chere http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x438px_monsters-inc-theatrical-trailer-2ch_shortfilms Edit: The Saturn one http://www.pixar.com/theater/trailers/inc/teaser_480.html Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Aug 13, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2008 00:05
|
|
|
I remember watching the same trailer for Supernova for like a year and a half as it kept getting delayed. And much maligned but personally beloved Haute Tension's stateside release was originally going to be Valentine's Day and they reused that trailer (with Valentine's Day note) in several theaters I frequented all the way to summer. But my favorite is that I was reminded that "in the year 2003, Uma Thurman will Kill Bill!". Too bad it got split and she didn't get around to it until 2004. Lazy bitch.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBYGQZQKb7k
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2008 02:44
|
|
|
Shnitzel posted:Ok can anyone post anytime when someone gets stabbed in the eye with a microscope then? gently caress this is bugging me Do you mean a telescope? Because I'm trying to imagine someone picking up a microscope and thrusting it in someone's eye. Or something on a petri dish going "gently caress you" and leaping through the lens. As for being shot through a telescope, that's not all that uncommon. You've got it in your Saving Private Ryans and Enemy at the Gates and many others.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2008 14:20
|
|
|
Dialogue Humor/Laughs Goriness  As a comment, there's a case to be made that too many categories makes it hard to use such a thing unless it was for your own personal edification. I think back to PC game reviews from the 80s that had like 10 categories and it was near impossible to kind of understand if the game was deemed good or not. To give an appropriate example, someone might say that Airplane has a low Cinematography, Art Direction, and Twist score but it's a fantastic movie. That said, I can understand the fun of being a bit detailed and anal about some stuff and it can be fun to break things down. It really gets your brain thinking about what goes into a good movie experience. Edit: As an alternative, use Screen It's system! 
Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Aug 22, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2008 15:09
|
|
|
Darthbane2007 posted:I know this might be a general question, but how does a director decide which scenes to film first? Although a few films are done sequentially, most are at the whim of all of the various elements that go into a scene. Availability of actors, availability of locations, weather, set construction, dovetailing elements (like doing all the separate scenes that need the same costly equipment), and sometimes litmus tests to bear out if the film will be able to maintain its projected budget. It's pretty complex and often involves lots of people, especially producers. Edit: If you haven't already, you should listen to the director's commentaries for some of your favorite films. It's a popular topic to talk about the first scene of shooting which can often be at the middle or even end of the film. They sometimes talk about how scenes are shuffled around too. Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Aug 23, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2008 16:09
|
|
|
Why don't you just do an IMDb search for keyword China and USA as the country of origin?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2008 04:12
|
|
|
Binowru posted:When they say an actor "chews the scenery" in a film, what are they saying exactly? Imagine a stage play, with fake props that represent trees and buildings and stuff. Obviously it's fake but proper actors treat them as real and kind of operate in that way. The audience enters a contract with the actors that say, "you treat them like real trees and I'll sort of pretend they're trees". A bad actor doesn't operate in that way. They overact, they destroy the illusion the audience is willing to create for themselves. They go up to a "tree" and eat it because it's just cardboard, forgetting that it should represent a tree. Whenever an actor is not even trying to "act" but is rather just outlandish, it's usually scenery chewing. At no time are you able to concentrate on anything else onscreen but the guy flipping out and hamming it up. You're just like "that's Jack Nicholson reading lines and flipping out". Christopher Walken has been scenery chewing for a bit now and does it "better" than most anyone else. Because while he's destroying the illusions, he knows it and the audience knows it and he's cast for that effect. The filmmakers are going "we could hire an actor to play a south american exploiting opportunist, but we'd rather put Walken in and let him entertain the hell out of you".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2008 20:34
|
|
|
Jive One posted:In Saving Private Ryan there's a scene in the beginning where Mellish is handed a hitler youth knife. He says something before he starts crying but I can't find a quote nor decipher it, and I always wondered if it related to the preceding battle or to the holocaust. The line is "Now it's a Shabbat challah cutter, right?", which is a jewish bread. Making it ironic in that sense, hitler youth knife used as a Jewish Sabbath bread knife. As for Bonnie and Clyde, the 60s were an awesome time and there is a lot of experimentation going on. That covers nearly every facet of filmmaking, including sex. I wouldn't say that Beatty and Dunaway didn't know how to act in a sex scene at the time, more that they were going for a particular immediacy and improvisation to the sex scene so it intentionally comes across unstructured and kind of anti-Hollywood. That's just my opinion though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2008 23:38
|
|
|
I think that was wise though, in the end. B&C had a mythology behind them as a great love affair that going that route would undermine (just like any form of love triangle) that myth. It's a big part of the appeal of the duo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2008 03:33
|
|
|
timeandtide posted:Is Rules of Engagement as militaristic and racist as the reviews say it is (the documentary, Reel Bad Arabs considers it one of the most infamous Hollywood moments out of every depiction of Middle Easterners)? My buddies and I tend to like to watch infamous or bizarre films just to see what insanity people have when given some celluloid (Story of Ricky and The President's Man 2: A Line in the Sand, for instance), and it just sounds so ridiculous (apparently a 4 year old Muslim child pulls a gun on the Embassy?) It's really only as racist as practically every movie that deals even tangentially with terrorism, perhaps slightly more. Most of them boil down to the "and the good one" approach, where all of the foreign characters are either evil, complicit, or incompetent except for "the good one" (usually literally one guy) who is honorable, capable, and helps Americans. Rules of Engagement only really varies in the sense that "the good one" is a guy from the North Vietnamese Army and tells the rather unvarnished truth. The thing is that the arab people have almost no face that I can recall (outside of maybe a Doctor, I think), which was a bit of a departure. Not only are they kind of an anonymous boogeyman, that exist only to be potentially a threat (I don't think they even bother to give mention for what the mob was protesting), but they're kind of Schrodinger's Arab Mob, always both armed and unarmed and can only be found to be either (in equal probability) by the end. What's sort of brilliant about the film is how it works so hard and adds cheating characters so that an audience is influenced to want the mob to be armed, if only so they will stop being so unfair to poor Sam Jackson. But really, it's only as racist as all the other ones (which in my opinion are). The only real difference is they don't try to humanize Arabs via the "good one" character mechanic and essentially makes them kind of like The Balrog, a motiveless plot device around which tragedy occurs). Edit: I remember a crippled kid in the clinic that Tommy Lee Jones visits but I can't bring to mind a specific crippled kid in the crowd. I do think I recall kids with weapons, however. Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Oct 10, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2008 03:09
|
|
|
We Are Citizen posted:I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like you are saying that every movie that deals even tangentially with terrorism is racist. Is that what you meant to say? Hollywood's terrorism movies, yeah, they pretty much are. The Kingdom, Rendition (where I think the four primary foreign characters are a daughter, a torturer, and a suspected terrorist, and a terrorist), even Syriana. That was both good and kind of interesting in that it showed how someone could be recruited for terrorism, but then again you just get mastermind terrorist and dimwitted dupes to work with for that particular plot aside. It's kind of fundamental to basic scriptwriting in that you've only got a limited time to work with, so there's not much time in the budget to deliver anything that shows Arabs in anything but the worst possible light. So nobody can really afford to do anything but pay lip service to balance, but that doesn't make them un-racist, just encouraged to do so in the interest of time. The "one good one" mechanic is what they can afford to do. It's kind of a lose-lose. If they try to be fair to their subjects, the action pictures suffer by being slow and painfully PC. If they stick cardboard "terrorists" in there the audience automatically understands because middle eastern is movie shorthand for terrorist so it's wonderfully efficient, but that's pretty racist. Hollywood has no mandate to educate or be fair, and I don't expect them to do be really. They're supposed to be storytellers and entertainers and that's their priority. But as a rabid consumer of Hollywood's products, I'd have no good opinion of Arabs at all if I weren't curious about the world and explored other resources. But right now Arabs are equal to Martians, forces of evil that at best you can only hope one breaks with the pack and tries to help you. But they make good bad guys.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2008 16:03
|
|
|
We Are Citizen posted:So do you think it is possible for Hollywood to make a good movie about terrorism that isn't racist? If so, how? If not, then how is it fair to call most Hollywood terrorism movies racist if they are already as non-racist as it is possible for them to be without sucking? It's possible, but it's probably at best a gamble. Action movies are tough to give characters any depth or provide diversity. They kind of have to go with the main cast of white guys, their black friend, and the woman (maybe two women). What I think has to happen first is the "Arab For No Reason" characters to pop up from time to time. It's kind of the precusor for any minority group. Black people used to only be in films as criminals or part of a "black story". Then they started to just show up, "Black for no reason". Of course, then they became Black Characters like in 80s horror films so they could be sassy before being dead. But the principle applies. What would be kind of interesting would be a movie set in the middle east cast with mostly arab characters. Maybe a cops vs crooks epic ala Heat but given their unique flavor. But that'd be a hard sell, a gamble. So I think it's possible, even inevitable (given enough time), but I'd say we're in an arab-sploitation phase of cinema. With some luck, we're in a late period of that phase.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2008 23:34
|
|
|
We Are Citizen posted:How would that be any any different from the "good one" cliche that you were talking about earlier? The "good one" basically plops the one good character amongst a sea of evil stereotypes. The "Arab for no reason" wouldn't be competing against all the negative stereotypes, he just be a charcter not "terrorist until proven otherwise". I think a good litmus test is to ask yourself if they appear to be fighting "Evil Middle Easterners" or if they appear to be fighting "Middle Easterners". As a rule of thumb, if the only reason you add that adjective is your own personal sense of political correctness you might want to ask what's been given to suggest that they're at all different from the entire Middle Eastern population. True Lies is not a bad example, really. I love the film but it's hardly a film to cherish for diversity. It does have a version of the "good one" in Faisal, but otherwise, is there anything to suggest that Harry not simply shoot any other Middle Eastern characters on sight? I mean, they're all terrorists and the bad guy is basically described as even worse than the average terrorist. Great film, great action, not very progressive racially. With regard to FMJ, it's a war film and broadly portrays the vietnamese as combatants (or whores). Could one infer that all Vietnamese were in the conflict? Perhaps, but only so far as you could assume all Americans were also. We Were Soldiers attempted (to varying levels of success) to show glimpses of the other side. Again, one might consider it as inferring that all Vietnamese were in the military but considering it was a conflict between the Americans and Vietnam, I don't think it was racist in portraying Vietnamese people being in the NVA. Perhaps I misunderstanding what you mean by asking me about those two movies?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2008 00:38
|
|
|
Diligent Deadite posted:Could you explain what you mean by this further? The current cycle of Middle-Eastern villains is nothing like Blaxploitation, which didn't refer to the exploitation of black characters or cast members, but was a spin off of exploitation cinema as a whole, so I don't really see a comparison until "Muhammed takes Manhattan" shows up on Broadway. We're exploiting them in their own way. Let's face it, exploitation films are about stereotypes and base emotions. Women are victims and raped, black people are abused/abusive and violent, and rednecks are ignorant and cannibals. This flavor simply has them as violent extremists down to the women and child. I choose to brand it a "-sploitation" phase because I think it's the same pattern. It's building and fostering those stereotypes to feed those base emotional feelings. Whereas others might work on anger or sexuality or domination, this one builds on xenophobia and fear. I don't imagine you could argue against arab characters existing only as terrorists or potential terrorists, could you? I mean, almost to a one (although if I've missed good Arab characters in Hollywood filmmaking I'm more than open to seeing them). Didn't the two "good one" arab characters in The Siege end up with one being the bomber and locked up with the rest of them? Now, I would enjoy seeing filmmakers embrace the stereotypes and twist the exploitive nature in a good way. Much as I imagine SA would hate this, a Bad Boys but with Arabs, where they toy with the racial stereotypes under the guise of an action set piece movie. Arab main characters killing white guys and you cheering the arab characters on. Obviously Bad Boys is a post-Blaxploitation evolution, but it paints an interesting picture of what could happen in the future. We Are Citizen posted:I would say that Soldiers is racist in the same way old movies about cowboys killing Indians were racist. They were, but mainly due to lazyness of storytelling and shallowness rather than hatred. Full Metal Jacket, I wouldn't call racist at all. I don't know that I'd agree with that. Old westerns had a wide range but the Indians were often scalp-hunting engines of destruction. We Were Soldiers struck me as more even both in the brief glimpses into the NVA side but also they didn't really touch on popular stereotypes of the Vietnamese. They were all vietnamese, sure, but they were generally uniformed members of their nation's army and acted accordingly. I can't really say it struck me as being racist, certainly not in the sense as older films. I think we're of similar mind with regard to FMJ though. muscles like this? posted:A good example of this would be Alexander Siddig in the movie Doomsday. He plays the Prime Minister of England but nobody even brings up that he's Arabic. Good call.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2008 07:24
|
|
|
morestuff posted:So, I've got some questions about the terminology you're using here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that blaxploitation and other films were intended to target their specific "blank-sploitation" audiences. morestuff posted:In the case of Arabs, I think you're missing the bigger picture here. I think in many cases, terrorists are filling the place of the Nazis of older films; generically "evil" characters that can be dispatched without much sympathy from the audience. Arabs in these films aren't uniformly evil in the same way that those who are ethnically German aren't uniformly evil. They just fulfill a filmic shorthand. There seems to be a feeling like if it's lazy or easy it isn't really racist, but it's one of the easiest ways that racism propogates. Nazis were very common as bad guys not only because it's easy to hate them, but because nobody will ever complain about it. Germans won't say "stop picking on us" because they've been cowed as a nation because of their actions in the war. Think about The Last Crusade, where Elsa (who is in my book tied for best female counterpart to Indy) is the only German character to not be an evil nazi...whoops, she's evil. But it's Nazis and Germans won't complain. Trying to say "it's innocent" or "they didn't mean it" or whatever doesn't mean it isn't racist. The fact that it's automatic for them to go "need a Terrorist = Arab" isn't because they're trying to be mean or are all hick redneck racists (see what I did there), it's because the racism is so ingrained that it's automatic. Just like black guy=clutch purse or German = Nazi. Should Indy movies be chided for their non-progressive stances? No, they're a throwback to a time where storytelling was loaded with it. Just like Jonny Quest and the newest King Kong are wonderfully racist because it's such a perfect reflection of classic high adventure where natives are evil savages deserving of being smited by white fists. Just like Quentin Tarantino movies aren't (in my opinion) deserving of chiding for their exploitation attributes because that's a conscious goal and he's naked about it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2008 10:06
|
|
|
morestuff posted:That said, is Melvin Van Peebles exploiting his race because his film fulfills all of the above criteria? Or does the fact that his film was hailed by Huey P. Newton and embraced by a militant black community change that? This is a fair avenue of discussion. Stereotypes are not just perpetuated from without, they just as often preserved and even encouraged from within. This seems to be a sticking point in a lot of racism discussions, that it only counts if done by someone outside of that group. By taking existing stereotypes and placing them in a different context, they could make them an attribute of sorts. So instead of the sex, drugs, and violence that permeated black characters before the civil rights movement, now it was sex, drugs, and violence against The Man and used for the community. That these stereotypes can be embraced doesn't invalidate it, just retasks it for another purpose more in line with "beneficial" stereotypes like Asians being good at math. What makes it somewhat novel is that the stereotypes being perpetuated aren't what would traditionally be considered positive but were of value to a persona of a prickly black culture that wouldn't be oppressed. So in answer to your question, I'd say yes he is exploiting both the stereotypes and the racial issues. And it's also done in a way that is arguably a positive in the views of some. quote:First off, Marion Ravenwood is far and away the best female counterpart to Indy. Also, saying that she's tied for first (out of three) is basically just saying "Hey, Willie sucked." Which I think we can all agree on. quote:This just seems like cherrypicking. I mean, how are some things "wonderfully racist" and not worthy of chiding, but you off-handedly dismiss films that include a "good Arab" as a weak prop of semi-racist screenwriters? How is it that films that are "perfect reflections" of a racist past, without any revisionist commentary, are somehow morally superior to films that at least try to make a concession to a balanced perspective? Well, maybe not morally superior, but as you say, worthy of chiding vs. not worthy of chiding? What if, during The Lake House, Keanu Reeves goes off saying "niggers! niggers!" or there was a rape scene in the middle of True Lies. It wouldn't fly at all, whereas it is used with some enthusiasm in Pulp Fiction and The Hills Have Eyes. Those films are dyed in the wool callbacks to their exploitive roots and are celebrated for the way in which they do so. It's because of those roots that behavior and activity which would be condemned in other circumstances. King Kong can have some wildly offensive savages because that's the kind of movie it is patterned on, an old pulpy adventure epic in darkest africa. I mean, they literally exist to kill and sacrifice. And I think it's beautiful in capturing that effect from an old Big Book of High Adventure I read as a kid. It may feel like cherry picking, especially for films outside of traditional exploitation (like horror films), because few in Hollywood are brave enough to touch back on those roots. Consider that QT seems able to draw on that but they weren't brave enough to do it with the remake of Shaft. It was made the safest way possible and couldn't even be considered a blaxploitation movie. quote:This is the part of the post where I say that I'm not a conservative blowhard, have Arab friends, etc. I'd hate to think I'm coming off as insensitive or assholish, I just disagree with what you're saying. But it also feeds that persona. It does so because it's so effective and satisfying. Hollywood feeds off the culture and in turn feeds it. It was influenced by the rampant crime in the 70s and helped build a sense of violent crime at every turn in the public consciousness. It led to great filmmaking while at the same time building a lot of negative stereotypes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2008 21:57
|
|
|
miffu posted:Just got my special edition of The Abyss, and having never seen it before was wondering which version would be best for first viewing, theatrical edition or the extended edition? I think The Abyss is one of those movies that has somewhere close to near unanimous support for the DC version. I suppose if you want to replicate the feeling we got watching it theatrical before the DVD release, you could go that route. But I'd say you're better off watching the theatrical version as a curiousity afterwards. It is shorter, but even short Cameron films are long and I don't think it would make up for the story differences.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2008 14:12
|
|
|
There are lots of "unrated" cuts, especially for comedies, that I don't like. Especially when they mess with the pacing. It's kind of unfortunately when it happens especially to films I almost know by heart as the new scenes stand out and if they don't deliver a laugh it's like a dead fish in the room, like with Dumb & Dumber. I also don't really care for the DC of Natural Born Killers. Many of the additions are gore and I strangely found the way the theatrical did it to be in better service of the story and theme. There was profound violence all through the thing, but it always had a kind of TV reenactment lack of goriness to a lot of it. For whatever reason, Oliver Stone didn't have squibs popping out of people quite often (like when Balthazar Getty gets killed after having sex with Mallory) and I thought it worked excellently and made the brief bits of gore in the TC more effective against the surreal nature of the violence. Battle Royale also isn't served well by the additions in the DC. The additional scenes are paced badly and slow down a film that should have momentum. Also, the DC of Payback should be considered a different film, much like the Exorcist Prequel. I wouldn't say avoid the DCs, but see the Theatrical first to be able to appreciate the difference. In both cases, I think the TC is superior to the DCs. Although in the Exorcist's case, Renny Harlin's film is far from a good movie. It's just that the original intent was well meaning but poorly handled and delivered. That's just a mess all around. Just my opinion though, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2008 18:42
|
|
|
Isn't it from a poem? Edit: Lord Byron http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/lord_byron/quotes
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2008 03:21
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:Ah, that explains why I would've missed it then. Thanks. DTV is pretty profitable. Braindead horror sells in every country (like action) because it crosses cultural boundaries just fine. They don't have to waste money on advertising like you'd have to with theatrical releases and can instead rely on rental agreements and television deals. And with the Sci-Fi channel's (and some up and coming competitors) voracious appetite for a new bad film every week, there's a near guaranteed home for lots of them. And there's a near infinite demand for horror. Horror fans will eat nearly anything up in the search for hidden gems. Even when it's bad it can be enjoyable as you can always appreciate the effects. CGI has gotten cheap enough that when you set the bar low enough it isn't a super strain on the budget and can still pass muster.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2008 14:29
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:Since we're on the topic though - I've got a dumb question about Cube since I happened to see it the other night. How did Holloway know so much about Quentin? There's a scene where they're arguing and she blurts out something about "liking little girls too much" or something and Quentin says she knew too much about him. She's likely been observing how he's been eyeing Leaven. She's a cynic and a conspiracy nut distrustful of people in power. It's probably not a stretch for her to call a cop interested in a teenager a closet pedo.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2008 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:03 |
|
|
Rake Arms posted:That reminds me, I never quite understood how they mapped the room's movement. They found each room's starting position by adding the digits of each number together, but how did they find the other positions? I know it has something to do with permutations, but I don't get how it works. I'm working off memory here but I think the permutations were contained in each of the six doors each room had. Six doors, six three digit number groupings, added together to get six different XYZ coordinates per room. So X1Y1Z1,X2Y2Z2...X6Y6Z6. They were originally obsessed with going in one direction to reach the edge so they only paid attention to the number groupings from one permutation's door. Like they were always reading X3Y3Z3 in each room because they were dedicated to going East.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2008 14:44
|
|