Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

Wolfsheim posted:

:laffo: at the guy upthread who said Bautista is the best wrestler-turned-actor

fair point. The Rock does a really good impression the Rock.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

Violator posted:

:colbert:



On my second and third watch I paid close attention to make sure. Honestly, it doesn't really matter and just shows how desperate the situation was and how important the military guy thought it was for himself to survive to use the location marker.

Edit: Or the dude looks like 2004 era JBL and is a huge rear end in a top hat.

Yeah, the whole point of the opening montage is how quickly things break down and how quickly people make very bad decisions.

This movie is set in an interesting spot. The whole point of a lot of the best zombie movies is how quickly the social order either breaks down or gets completely rewritten. The apocalypse isn't really the zombies, but what they do to us. Some films have tried to imagine what happens afterwards, but still go with the idea that zombies would, somehow, actually destroy society themselves. Army of the Dead is set in a world where the zombie plague was more or less solved or contained, like the post credit world of Shaun of the Dead, but it's a darker take where the spectre of zombies has allowed the lovely rhetoric and policies that are already in our world to go into overdrive. Snyder's Dawn of the Dead was about the days after 9/11, this is about the decades after the Patriot Act is passed.

There's a fair bit going on and so it's disappointing (though not surprising) to see a lot of comments on social media calling it a 'turn your brain off' kind of movie. It's pretty straight forward in its plotting, but there's a lot of great little touches that do elevate it. The Tiger simply chilling on the hood of a car in the middle of the grand zombie charge was my favourite shot, though the absolutely spectacular destruction of the zombie by 50 cal rounds was a close second.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

The REAL Goobusters posted:

Definitely a normal post

Making-up-a-guy-and-getting-mad-at-them.txt

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

NieR Occomata posted:

A zombie movie has NO EXCUSE for being over two hours long.

Train to Busan and I am a Hero. Also, 1978's Dawn of the Dead, which is longer longer.

I am always curious about completely arbitrary and plainly untrue rules. How did you come to this number?

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

Mormon Star Wars posted:

Because you don't need seven. You just need one guy and all the zombies looking the other way.

Its established early on that badasses with guns aren't actually enough to accomplish anything. The military doesn't solve the zombie problem and gets chumped. When Bly is selling them on the mission, the image of them badassly charging down the strip gunning everything down is clearly shown as a silly fantasy.

Martin isn't even a bad rear end! He is less bad rear end than the thief, who is portrayed as a complete goof. So this isn't a problem that adding more elite operators is going to solve.

What will solve it is telling a bunch of greedy rubes that they need to turn on the lights and make a bunch of noise and wake up the neighbors so they aren't looking at the one guy doing his job.

In turn, we're also assuming that Bly, who lied to all the main characters, was completely honest with a kind of stupid employee. Like, the guy who deliberately mislead everyone just told some dipshit who worked for him everything.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

John Wick of Dogs posted:

I get the sense he is evaluating their character and worthiness cause they're going to be part of his society forever. ICE man is such a poo poo he is immediately seen to only be shambler material.

That's probably why the queen even goes to see them again, they gave her a poo poo sacrifice

I think it's the other way round: he's young and healthy, got some equipment...maybe he knows what's what. Could be useful. He might know the layout or some exits or something. Then it turns out he's useless so they head back.

He's not a shambler, he moves quickly and knows how to hunt.

Or, maybe, who you were pre-bite has an effect on who you are post bite. A dumbass like him turns into a kind of stupid alpha, whereas Van or Scott would have turned into super killing machines.



I think the credit sequence is the part that peole are most misunderstanding. People are saying that they wish that was the movie. That's the point. It's every zombie movie ever compressed into five minutes or so, complete with whole arcs for several characters (including ones that end tragically)

This is a film about the new normal. Dawn of the Dead was about the first few weeks after some terrible traumatic event. This is about the years afterwards, when things still aren't back to normal. In the twentieth year after 9/11, with the breaking of the American psyche still in full swing, that hits a little different.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

LesterGroans posted:

Yeah, this movie absolutely made me an Omari Hardwick fan.

Ditto. Looks like his major thing before this was the TV show "Power"

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

Guy A. Person posted:

lol so they literally made a motivation up in their head then argued against it? wtf?

Welcome to internet film criticism. Even people who are generally very good at it have a tendency to work backwards from a conclusion about intent, then say the film didn't do that very well (which would suggest that, perhaps, that wasn't the goal)

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

Just to re-iterate, the "classic zombie tropes" in this movie are pretty weak. The shamblers certainly fit the bill but they're barely in it beyond that one scene of Chambers absolutely wrecking dozens of them and their appearance in the title sequence. By the time the actual movie is underway they've largely been discarded - we're told by Lily that they're almost too stupid to be a threat and any of the ones outdoors are essentially "dead". Zeus is functionally a vampire and the Olympus is his castle. His has his Bride and his disciples and he has a ritualistic initiation where he bites you and turns you into a lesser version of himself but still under his thrall. Very vampire.

I've never really bought zombies as a literal threat in films. They're slow, stupid and already falling apart. They're terrible disease vectors since it's not like the symptoms can hide or anything and their prey is also their primary hunter. I loved that this is one of the first zombie movies I've seen that went 'yeah, they're really loving stupid and not really a threat' Because that's true. Unless they're in enormous numbers. In turn, however, they aren't enough of a threat to really gain enormous numbers, since the process would be extremely attritional to them. Zeus and the alphas bridge that gap.

Just to point out the obvious, I do that most classic horror monsters, zombies included, are more embodiments of our fears than literal threats. Obviously zombies represent the fear of the mob and mass violence, and how fragile society is.

Hey, we both came to the vampire conclusion, nice.

wyoming posted:

Thinking about the ending, and Vanderohe perhaps creating a new zombie empire in Mexico City, there are a few things to keep in mind: one the rebirth, he could be something new, some time has passed before he showed any signs; also that Zeus was a godking, perhaps he simply forbid the alphas from begetting more alphas, it was a ritual only he was allowed to perform.

This is an interesting idea. A common element in vampire stories (and there's a lot of overlap between zombie and vampire stories) is that being turned into a vampire isn't simply a matter of getting bitten, there's an element of wanting to be turned and some extra component (like ingesting a vampire's blood, and the blood has to be willingly given or something) You might be turned into a familiar or a thrall, but not become a vampire unless the vampire wants you to become one or the recipients really wants it.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

well why not posted:

Holy poo poo Colbert an unlikeable presence.

he had it, but he's long since lost it.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

2house2fly posted:

You should have asked him how to spell his name

it's "Rhonda" Rousey all over again.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

This was my favourite aspect. It felt especially true given that, this weekend, the best boxer of his generation is going to box a youtuber who has yet to win a fight.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

CelticPredator posted:

And both like to film the dead.

I'm so proud of you. for real

bushisms.txt posted:

I took that comment to mean watch the anime prequel for a really cool sequence, at least that's what I'm hoping for.

I think that's the point of a lot of the little easter egg type things: It's a film that's hinting at other stories to be told in this universe while being pretty focused on the one story.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

AFoolAndHisMoney posted:

Holy poo poo.

I didn't realise Snyder made Army on only 70mill and it looked that good and he still managed to completely edit in a new actor and make it look fairly seamless.

Why isn't he just filming JL2 in his garage?

That's something that's always struck me about his films, big or small budget: you can see every dollar on the screen. You read about how much some movies cost and wonder where the money could have possibly gone (cocaine, obviously)

Triple Frontier was the most dramatic example. 115 million for something that looks less interesting and less spectacular than your average straight to DVD action film.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

TychoCelchuuu posted:

I absolutely get what you're saying but I think this is kind of unfair on Triple Frontier in particular. I don't know where they actually filmed it but it looked like they filmed it basically on location with a helicopter in the loving mountains and in a jungle. There wasn't much spectacle but the movie wasn't trying for spectacle. It was trying for Hurt Locker style faux verisimilitude, and I think it looked good with that goal in mind. It's not like Triple Frontier was trying to make a garish violent spectacle like Army of the Dead. Only one of those two movies bothered to spend significant time dwelling on (for instance) whether you can physically carry that much money in a helicopter, etc. Army of the Dead is not concerned with those sorts of details and it has an aesthetic to match. Triple Frontier is directly concerned with all those details and it has an aesthetic to match.

A better example would probably be the Marvel movies shot almost entirely in Atlanta like Captain America: Civil War which have gigantic budgets and look like poo poo. Just a bunch of people composited together on gray sets with white skies.

I would buy that for Triple Frontier except, for however much they shot on location, its structured so that we just jump from one small area to another. We're in the house, we're at the airfield, we're in the village. There's no sense of scale or movement, which, to me at least, is the advantage of location shooting. You could never, for instance, recreate that shot from Aguirre of the conquistators firing the cannon into the jungle on a set, or, from Lawrence of Arabia, that shot of the guy riding out of the deep background. Even though it apparently isn't, it feels like a bunch of sets. Everything feels sterile and not filled in.

Again, I buy that that's what they were doing and what the money went on, but it really wasn't on screen. It's kind of a poor movie in general so it's not massively surprising that the cinematography and mis en scene are as weak as everything else about it.

A better comparison than the straight to DVD film might be, say, Sorceror.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

Shanty posted:

Will Heist Thrills Spilled by Zombie Chills Fulfil the Snyder-pilled to the Gills or be Killed by Ill Will and Paid Shills?


Blood Boils posted:

He broke into the safe and stole the script

Dang. This thread puts in work. Like Snyder and everyone in his cast.


Olympic Mathlete posted:

Huh, that's Guz Khan on the left. He's a local lad and quite funny. I wonder if they made him stick to the script or gave him free reign.

I thought he looked familiar. I think I've seen him in a few of the British comedy chat shows.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply