|
super late edit: sorry, wrong thread
CowOnCrack fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Feb 9, 2011 |
#
¿
Dec 23, 2010 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
For AL:VH, even though the movie was entertaining I couldn't get over how a real world historical setting with tragic consequences was getting trivialized into an action movie. I understand this is supposed to be one of those movies that is pure fun and lunacy, but this movie made me feel uneasy while watching for the same reason Inglorious Basterds did. I'm not supposed to take it seriously or view it as profanity towards history but I can't help but feel like it is. The only way I could feel good about the whole thing is if it were a cleverly crafted parody that is calling on us to recognize how degraded and trivialized real violence and human suffering has become in the collective consciousness. Even then, I'd probably think that it goes way too far and only has the effect of perpetuating and spreading what it attempts to criticize. I guess it is because I took media studies in college that the knowledge of the effects of repeated trivialized violence to individuals over the long term worries me. Just because something is meant to be pure fantasy doesn't mean it doesn't have negative effects on society and the people who watch these films. This film sets a precedent - we can now go back to any event in the past retell the history in a way that includes all the tragic components but then adds bizarre nonsensical twists and includes heaps of trivialized violence. What's next, movies that go back in history and poo poo all over a colossal tragedy? These fantasy worlds of pure insanity where you can debauch anything and everything have only been truly possible in modern cinema of the past 20 or so years, and it seems a deluge of new films continue to push the limits but the audience continues to never break and asks for more. I guess I'm just a luddite and a closet Mormon who would be more at home in Sunday School. edit: I thought I'd further comment on the last point about this phenomena being 'new'. Of course someone is going to jump on me and say that there were films in the 30s doing this thing, but one important thing about violence on the screen is realism. In the last 20 years or so, it has been possible to literally recreate history to be as real as real life, such as the Gettysburg battle in AL:VH. Before the lack of realism would be present enough that there would be a degree of separation from this fictional storytelling and what actually happened in real history. In fact, that Gettysburg battle literally made me feel sick when I saw it, as did so many other incredibly realistic scenes. These were terrible events that evoke real and profound emotions but then you realize it's just being used as part of a ridiculous action movie for no reason whatsoever. It cheapens the entire experience and left me feeling like poo poo. What is the point of this? What is the point of the real Lincoln's soaring speeches in this context? They are meant to inspire us and move us, yet the context has been utterly debauched? Profane and perverse, yet undeniably entertaining sums up my thoughts of this movie. Also, feeling guilty for being entertained. CowOnCrack fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Jun 29, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2012 07:20
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:I'm seeing this argument around a lot and it does have some validity. I would argue, however, that this can be compared to something like Horrible Histories, which highlights the brutality of actual violence throughout history in an effort to pique the interest of children. In Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, we know that vampires are not real, so it stands to reason that the film is actually about Abraham Lincoln, who was real. The teachings of history are refined through fiction. The lessons are more important than the facts. This is one more positive outlook on it, and I think that this could be true to some extent in AL:VH, although this movie does seem a bit scant on the historical details, and the movie doesn't seem quite suited to young children. Yet the history does seem to be a more simplified child-like version of history rather than a mature understanding. The main elements of the real history that were covered were just the grade school basics - Lincoln existed, he was the president that ended slavery, his two arguably most important rhetorical contributions of the emancipation proclamation and the Gettysburg address..and well, that's about it. And the description of the economic institution of slavery was obscured by interweaving it with some kind of vampiric and supernatural conspiracy. Of course, it may be rather brilliant if vampires are really just a way of stacking on the moral repugnance we should feel towards the pre-bellum the South - after all, slavery could be seen as a vampiric institution, sucking the life away from a repressed group of people to prop up the lives of others. However, this is at the cost of removing moral ambiguity from a historical thread that is all too often portrayed in black and white terms, just as Inglorious Basterds and other movies portray WWII (nazis = bad, mass slaughter of jews = bad, but mass slaugher of nazis = good). Of course, society at large is hugely guilty of the Romanticism and moral simplification of history so this isn't a problem unique to these movies at any rate. Angela Christine posted:I don't know, we may be underestimating how realistic things seemed to those audiences. When you go back and look at the first CGI it is hilariously fake. The puppets and practical effects before that? Also pretty drat fake. Early colour films? Grainy and fake. The first talkies? Terrible sound quality. The first motion pictures? Hah, mimes are more convincing. Looking backwards, films have just now with the advent of high def finally become realistic enough to warp viewers perceptions of reality. Yes, and my central premise (which is probably impossible to prove/disprove) is that these kinds of things very subtly influence how we think about the world, and you might even say that how we think about the world influences further artistic endeavors and the process is like some kind of feedback loop - a hall of mirrors reflecting in imagine back on itself over and over until it becomes an even greater distortion of the truth. Art imitates reality, which influences further art. In this case one movie sets a precedent and a depiction of reality which makes others in the "Artworld" (thinking of Arthur Danto's essay) possible. quote:On the other hand, I remember being astonished by the lifelike graphics in video games starting in the 1980s. I see the point you are making here, but I guess I would just say that remember there will be an audience of those younger than you who never saw the intermediary stages, and that now the hard cap of realism has been hit. It's reached 10/10 aka indistinguishable from reality. Also, I don't doubt for a minute that even older digital media influenced my perception of the world, and maybe this influence even increased as it got more convincing. quote:The best you've ever seen looks fantastic to you. Looking back we may not think silly old black and white movies could ever have been immersive enough to warp people's view of reality. But compared to a low budget stage play, those old movies were just like being there for real. The shower scene in Psycho was shocking and visceral, just like you are standing there in the bathroom watching it happen (it was realistic enough that my own grandmother claimed she stopped having showers for a few months after seeing it.) At the time they definitely did shape people's view of history and violence. But what happens when it becomes indistinguishable from reality?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2012 00:08
|
|
Some of those old Sierra adventure games were amazing, not quite lifelike, but like a beautiful painting. Gradually becoming more and more like a photograph. Then the first low-polygon animation popped up and wow, the people in Alone in the Dark move like real people, how spooky and realistic! I remember some games on my SNES had grey "sweat" when people got hurt because having red blood was "too realistic" and traumatic for kids to handle. And on and on, amazing new heights of realism being reached every 5 years, making everything that came before it look like unplayable fakey fake poo poo. Until now we have games where you play a soldier out in a realistic environment and the character models are so detailed that you can see the drat pores in their skin. Wow! (In a couple more years we'll realize that today's super-realistic character models still look more like Realdolls than real people.)
|
Offkorn posted:Teach people critical thinking skills so that they don't ever mistake a self-proclaimed fictional story as fact? Yes, teaching critical thinking is very important and I don't think most people will take these stories as fact at any rate. But these movies and their images and messages influence things anyway, despite our conscious attempts to put them in their place. Trivializing violence, in particular, is something that influences at least some of its viewers regardless of critical thinking levels. Also, broader worldviews and perceptions can be affected. For example, in one well known media study individuals were polled according to an index of a 'dangerous, scary world' which evaluated their perceptions of the world, with Q/A like, "How likely is a stranger to help you? 1) Likely, 2) Not likely, 3) They are like to harm you" and so on. They controlled for factors such as education level and they tried to determine the effect of constant exposure to news on television. Every conceivable category had some individuals with a more negative, fearful, and/or paranoid outlook on the world with a high degree of exposure to television news, although those with at least a college education were much less influenced. But even if individuals aren't influenced, dialog and standards for further art are. Society as a whole is - it's inevitable. This isn't saying much of interest or importance of course. I just hope these kinds of movies are discussed critically for their merits and demerits and that most people can have a chance to consider the art from multiple perspectives. Another reason why film criticism is great and you current releases guys do a great job, by the way. It was your review that sparked me to go see the movie with my mother and she thought it was great fun. I am just the one more prone to over-analysis.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2012 05:35
|
|
|
I like how the perspective of your review team differs from mainstream critics on many major films and I couldn't care less what your motives are as long as the criticism is thoughtful, and it almost always is. For example, the hype about Lincoln was really irking me. Now I know that hype is a big part of films like Lincoln these days, but there was something about the hype around this film that seemed to be entering brave new world territory. There was a Time magazine article all about Day-Lewis's performance before the movie even loving came out. Also, after this presidential election and watching Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter, I wanted to stay the hell away from presidential movies, let alone ones about Lincoln (The highly positive review of that movie is one of the only ones here I've strongly disagreed with. Also is this poo poo going to have topical Obama/Lincoln comparisons? oh please gently caress no). Sure enough the critics are showering this movie with praise and my brother convinced me to go see it. I saw it, and not surprisingly it was merely 'alright' (good central performance but imo not epic loving amazing like everyone's saying, and the rest was just 'meh'), and then I came here knowing that this group would evaluate it independently. Sure enough your review proved capable of resisting the hysteria and pointing out the flaws. It was the same with Skyfall - I thought it was OK and fairly entertaining but rather flawed as a movie and you guys were spot on with how it all seemed incoherent and disconnected. For example, I can't even figure out if it's supposed to be a reboot, or taking place in the bond universe but in the future when he's like 50? I guess it doesn't really matter but man I miss bond movies that at least tried to have a theme or plot you would care about (but the villain WAS loving amazing, I love that guy). Now I've learned to ignore mainstream criticism about these mega-hyped movies because it feels like the critics are in bed with the movie production companies - criticism has just become an extension of the advertising for the movie except it's after the movie has been released. Big time conspiracy theory with no proof but that's just been my impression. Granted, I am not a big-time movie buff nor do I check out things aside from rotten tomatoes / imdb / basic internet meta-reviews, but that's why I come here because you do good work for me! If there's one criticism I could level at the reviews here, it's that they could be even more analytical and insightful. Of course sometimes you guys aim for that and end up being way off the mark according to some people, but I say don't give a poo poo and do it. Your perspective on Twilight, for example, or A-Team, is just loving genius. I also really enjoyed Clumsy's follow up for Prometheus, because now suddenly that movie makes a lot more sense. CowOnCrack fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Nov 23, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2012 08:00
|
|
|
No movie of the week this time around?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
Godzilla terrifies me. The movie, not the dinosaur. It's just....what the gently caress. What do I make of a movie like this. A movie that starts off like Jurassic Park, then proceeds to appropriate vibes from Aliens(-ish whatever), Prometheus, any post-apocalypse movie with abandoned overgrown city of your choosing, more Aliens, then straight into U.S. disaster central-ville with one 'population center' destroyed after another. We have tremor-related nuclear disaster in Japan (ugh..real nuclear disaster in Japan by earthquake tsunami that killed thousands in recent memory..argghh exploited suffering), then we head to modern times in Hawaii and Godzilla initiates a Tsunami-like wave, carrying cars, trees, and people away (ugh...millions dead from tsunamis in recent history...oww my soul) then we head to the U.S. for some good old 9/11 (as pointed out already - therapy session is loving over, just stop Hollywood loving STOP EXPLOITING THIS poo poo OR I'LL MAKE YOU). Meanwhile, during all of this poo poo there are constant scenes and shots of raw disaster exploitation - a little girl cast for the most penetrating stare in Hollywood whose only point is to spot the tsunami coming, a dog that gets to escape and run from it, a little Japanese kid who only exists to get stuck on a train with Brody and then be heroically reunited for a 5 second scene later, Brody's son who is cast for cutest kid in Hollywood (or at least makes the top 10 list), and a non-insignificant number of bizarrely tender, decently-acted somewhat genuinely felt scenes of love, struggle, and reunification of humans in a movie that doesn't really give a gently caress about anybody. Millions of people were not really harmed in the making of this movie! They don't show any real blood or gore anyway, just imply that there's an accumulated Mount Everest of it scattered all over Japan, Hawaii, and the continental United States. Meanwhile, all of these scenes of carnage are so gloriously constructed and shot, and so full of detail, that they are moments that literally captivate you - acquire and hold your attention against your will. The high altitude jump scene is among the most stunning and visually poetic I've ever witnessed in cinema (for extra cognitive dissonance!) There are jokes and references in the middle of all this hurt and chaos that are actually..well, subtle and clever and meet the average cynical person's criteria of "acceptable to laugh at". Then there is all of this creepy military poo poo. It's like, OK, here comes the US military to save us. It's everywhere! SWAT! FEMA! Navy Seals! Martial law, cool gadgets, call signs and lingo, Hoorah. Even though you know they aren't doing poo poo to the monsters, the movie is still full of men and women in uniform fighting and dying to save us. I have the highest respect for men and women in uniform, but this movie in my eyes amounts to a prostitution and exploitation of them more than anything else. And at the end of this formula of near perfectly distilled, raw entertainment, I walk away so cold and empty that I could use a delicious hot cocoa and someone to tell that I love them. What the gently caress is the point of all of this poo poo. Even during the movie I was like "Haha..that was funny! Well, yeah. *sighs, murmurs sadly*" "Whoa, that was...incredibly well shot. *looks down, depressed*." And give me a break - man can't control nature as a subtext? These are made up monsters, who gives a poo poo. Maybe that was the point of the original Godzilla - the only thing I know about the original Godzilla was it was this big dinosaur that attacked a city. It was some icon from childhood, I can't even recall of I saw the original. It was pointless dinosaur then, its a pointless dinosaur now, except with all of this really, really distressing baggage. I don't see any loving point at all, sorry. Yet I can't deny it was very well crafted, entertaining (despite the sadness inside afterwards), and hilarious. It's like being tickled, except in a creepy way that makes you want to vomit afterwards. What the gently caress. This is why I don't watch these blockbusters (or new movies in general) anymore. It was the end of the semester and I wanted to hang out with my brother and sister so I gave in. This time. Last time. CowOnCrack fucked around with this message at 07:16 on May 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Crow_Rodeo posted:I was in the military, I don't feel like they were prostitutes in this movie. I wonder, twelve years after Pearl Harbor, were people crying about every boat that sank in a movie? How about less than 5 years after they make a movie trivializing destruction of US Navy boats by Japanese planes? I guess maybe disaster exploitation doesn't exist, but I feel it does. Are movies are free to use realistic destruction mimicking recent events? It bothers me, because they were real events with real consequences and the events in these movies are trying seem as real as possible but without showing any consequences. It's the same reason I was bothered by Inglorious Basterds and Django unchained - it's just creepy the way they appropriate really serious history poo poo (holocaust, slavery). I am sure others are not bothered.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
effectual posted:Does this make you cry too? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8bV9iNStEI I wish you the best in your life, even if we disagree.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 00:11
|
|