- Joined
- Aug 20, 2000
- Posts
- 60,434
I fucking love Matt Berry. True genius of our time. Witchhazel is a great album. Douglas Renholm is the best character on The IT Crowd.
Movie opinions thread (what have you seen, what did you think?)
- Thread starter aria
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2005
- Posts
- 12,919
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2016
- Posts
- 4,346
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2003
- Posts
- 7,145
I just want to quote this again, because it's a very true statement.
Has anyone watched Dragged Across Concrete yet? I'm hoping to see it tomorrow night.
Brawl was fucking incredible
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2000
- Posts
- 60,434
Of course I have.
I personally found out about Berry because of Snuff Box. I found out about Snuff Box because of Dredd.
The circle of life.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2016
- Posts
- 4,346
I also love that he's in Duncan Jones' Moon for like 3 seconds haha
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2004
- Posts
- 14,436
The pilot for WWDITS was really good, same level of quality as the movie, which I guess makes sense considering Clement is the main writer and Waititi is directing, and the cast is very good (Berry was awesome and the lead, Kayvan Novak, was pitch perfect).
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2000
- Posts
- 60,434
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2004
- Posts
- 14,436
"His power grows stronger by the night!"
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2000
- Posts
- 60,434
It was popular in the 1940s, but since then he just looks like a greasy homo
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2000
- Posts
- 13,203
Day of the Dead: Bloodline
Just watched this shitshow on Netflix.
Skip it.
It's a remake of the Romero film but doesn't possess an ounce of its intentions or auteur spirit.
The biggest problem is the captive zombie, Bub in the original film and Max here.
They turned Bub from a victim of circumstance with a noble heart hanging on to a shred of humanity into a sexual predator turned zombie hanging on to most of his misogynistic desire to rape. Ztoo, I guess?
Anyway, this fundamental change in the film was too much for me to take. Wrongheaded in every way that matters.
My rating:
Just watched this shitshow on Netflix.
Skip it.
It's a remake of the Romero film but doesn't possess an ounce of its intentions or auteur spirit.
The biggest problem is the captive zombie, Bub in the original film and Max here.
They turned Bub from a victim of circumstance with a noble heart hanging on to a shred of humanity into a sexual predator turned zombie hanging on to most of his misogynistic desire to rape. Ztoo, I guess?
Anyway, this fundamental change in the film was too much for me to take. Wrongheaded in every way that matters.
My rating:
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2000
- Posts
- 60,434
Came for the taiso, stayed for the #ztoo
Rot
Calvin & Hobbes, ,
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2003
- Posts
- 11,441
I watched some of the trailers... It's a hard pass even on "downloadz" for me...
Just watched The Highwaymen.... It's another Netflix Original Film...
The plot revolves the guys involved in basically "executing" Bonnie and Clyde...
It's sorta slow and involved but Woody Harrelson and Kevin Costner hold you in...
I never expected I would say that I am sorta a Kevin Costner fan atm... his films as he gets older seem to be better and his acting maybe more reflective...
Woody Harrelson is almost always great... so I enjoyed it...
xROTx
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2000
- Posts
- 13,203
300
I've been playing Assassin's Creed: Odyssey, a game that uses the political and ideological differences between ancient Athens and Sparta for the backdrop of its story. The opening scene is the first battle at the Hot Gates, in fact. This got me to thinking about what I still consider to be Zack Snyder's magnum opus and how long it's been since I watched it. So I busted out my Blu-ray of the film and decided to give it a watch this morning.
The film debuted in 2006, 14 years ago (!), and is itself an adaptation of Frank Miller's 1996 comic book story, which itself is a recounting of the Legend of Leonidas and the 300 Spartans through a lens that portrays the historical events as mythology itself, as potent as any of the trials of Heracles or the hunt for the Golden Fleece. It's a fanciful rendition that celebrates the valor, bravery and sacrifice of a small group of battle hardened, uncompromising warriors for whom military discipline wasn't just a way of life but also a way to the afterlife. It's not intended to be historically accurate, and anybody that wrings their hands or clutches at their pearls over 300 for failing to strive for any kind of objectivity, quite honestly, should seek psychiatric aid.
As mythology, the story works. The comic book is not without its issues, to be sure, but as with Star Wars, Lord of the Rings or any other enduring cultural artistic phenomenon, its earnest heart rings truer than any meager attempt to be 'informative' or 'sensitive'. This is a story about the simplest, most noble and admirable traits any man can possess. It works because, on a far more primal level that is immune to postmodern deconstruction, it is a human story. Every culture has its own version of 300 and a cursory history search on Google will prove this to be true. To wit: a small but dedicated and loyal group of defenders sacrifices themselves for the preservation of an ideal that is more noble, everlasting and powerful than even they will ever know.
Zack Snyder is very hit or miss with me. The problem with the man is that he isn't as smart as he thinks he is, and sometimes this gets in the way of his ability to make a film. Both Watchmen and Sucker Punch suffer from his personal delusions of grandeur, born of his his inner artistic eye confusing him to the point where his mastery of visual pacing and tone are mistaken for narrative agility In the case of Watchmen, the source material is inherently open to interpretation since its such a deliberate deconstruction of its own genre. In the case of Sucker Punch, its his own work and not an adaptation and, therefore, is vulnerable to his own deficiencies as a creator. From Watchmen on, Snyder's output has shown a hubris that he just isn't able to distance himself from.
With 300, and Dawn of the Dead before it, it's clear Snyder hasn't yet succumbed to his own notions of cinematic mastery. Say what you will of Dawn of the Dead but in terms of action and suspense, it is as white-knuckle as any I've ever seen, matched perhaps only by the last 45 minutes of Aliens, the later of which is an experience that Roger Ebert once described as 'unhealthy for audiences' due to its intensity. It is clear that Snyder was a fan of these two sources and his inner ego-beast hasn't yet assumed dominance.
With 300, Snyder sees its immortal themes, itstimeless sentiments that have historically spoken to mankind and will do so for as long as human beings remain human beings and labors diligently to preserve them. There is no revisionism going on here, no 'contextual' examination for a 'modern audience'. Snyder smartly recognizes that such is not necessary, and maybe never was. There are scenes added to humanize the characters, such as the elevated role Gorgo (Lena Heady) is given on the homefront while Leonidas (Gerard Butler) defends it from afar. But I don't feel these elements of the movie damage the potency of the source material at all. In fact, I think they help to expose larger audiences to the important, everlasting ideas contained within by making the conflict a personal fight as well as an ideological struggle.
The film is timeless in my opinion, perhaps the first true post LotR cinematic classic. Snyder built a film that would look great and play well 50 years from now (although cultural pundits will, no doubt, try their best to discredit and smear this movie's importance and relevance) because he understood the underlying truth of the source material's simplistic interpretation of events. 300 is about pride, sacrifice and belief in a noble ideal (in this case, freedom) and in that respect, Miller's comic book may be invulnerable to cultural relativism.
There are two performances that should have made A listers out of their actors but, for some reason, never did. The first, of course, is Gerard Butler as Leonidas. It is such a fiery, intense and heroic portrayal that it's comparable to Russel Crowe's own star making turn in Gladiator. Butler could have been the next Mel Gibson, and indeed he channels some of the spirit and conviction of the aging and controversial Hollywood legend, but for whatever reason...Butler's candle faded pretty fast and despite having roles in other films, he seems to have had his 15 minutes of mega-fame. The other performance is David Wenham as Dilios, the poet and storyteller of the 300 Spartans. Wenham delivers his lines with a forceful inspiration that should have served him very well in other projects. When he was on the screen, even with a dominant Butler, he either owned or shared ownership in every scene he was in. This was a magnificent performance by Wenham, and it's a shame we never saw this version of him after this film
If you couldn't tell, I remain very taken with this film and this story.
My rating:
The opposite of Day of the Dead: Bloodline
I've been playing Assassin's Creed: Odyssey, a game that uses the political and ideological differences between ancient Athens and Sparta for the backdrop of its story. The opening scene is the first battle at the Hot Gates, in fact. This got me to thinking about what I still consider to be Zack Snyder's magnum opus and how long it's been since I watched it. So I busted out my Blu-ray of the film and decided to give it a watch this morning.
The film debuted in 2006, 14 years ago (!), and is itself an adaptation of Frank Miller's 1996 comic book story, which itself is a recounting of the Legend of Leonidas and the 300 Spartans through a lens that portrays the historical events as mythology itself, as potent as any of the trials of Heracles or the hunt for the Golden Fleece. It's a fanciful rendition that celebrates the valor, bravery and sacrifice of a small group of battle hardened, uncompromising warriors for whom military discipline wasn't just a way of life but also a way to the afterlife. It's not intended to be historically accurate, and anybody that wrings their hands or clutches at their pearls over 300 for failing to strive for any kind of objectivity, quite honestly, should seek psychiatric aid.
As mythology, the story works. The comic book is not without its issues, to be sure, but as with Star Wars, Lord of the Rings or any other enduring cultural artistic phenomenon, its earnest heart rings truer than any meager attempt to be 'informative' or 'sensitive'. This is a story about the simplest, most noble and admirable traits any man can possess. It works because, on a far more primal level that is immune to postmodern deconstruction, it is a human story. Every culture has its own version of 300 and a cursory history search on Google will prove this to be true. To wit: a small but dedicated and loyal group of defenders sacrifices themselves for the preservation of an ideal that is more noble, everlasting and powerful than even they will ever know.
Zack Snyder is very hit or miss with me. The problem with the man is that he isn't as smart as he thinks he is, and sometimes this gets in the way of his ability to make a film. Both Watchmen and Sucker Punch suffer from his personal delusions of grandeur, born of his his inner artistic eye confusing him to the point where his mastery of visual pacing and tone are mistaken for narrative agility In the case of Watchmen, the source material is inherently open to interpretation since its such a deliberate deconstruction of its own genre. In the case of Sucker Punch, its his own work and not an adaptation and, therefore, is vulnerable to his own deficiencies as a creator. From Watchmen on, Snyder's output has shown a hubris that he just isn't able to distance himself from.
With 300, and Dawn of the Dead before it, it's clear Snyder hasn't yet succumbed to his own notions of cinematic mastery. Say what you will of Dawn of the Dead but in terms of action and suspense, it is as white-knuckle as any I've ever seen, matched perhaps only by the last 45 minutes of Aliens, the later of which is an experience that Roger Ebert once described as 'unhealthy for audiences' due to its intensity. It is clear that Snyder was a fan of these two sources and his inner ego-beast hasn't yet assumed dominance.
With 300, Snyder sees its immortal themes, itstimeless sentiments that have historically spoken to mankind and will do so for as long as human beings remain human beings and labors diligently to preserve them. There is no revisionism going on here, no 'contextual' examination for a 'modern audience'. Snyder smartly recognizes that such is not necessary, and maybe never was. There are scenes added to humanize the characters, such as the elevated role Gorgo (Lena Heady) is given on the homefront while Leonidas (Gerard Butler) defends it from afar. But I don't feel these elements of the movie damage the potency of the source material at all. In fact, I think they help to expose larger audiences to the important, everlasting ideas contained within by making the conflict a personal fight as well as an ideological struggle.
The film is timeless in my opinion, perhaps the first true post LotR cinematic classic. Snyder built a film that would look great and play well 50 years from now (although cultural pundits will, no doubt, try their best to discredit and smear this movie's importance and relevance) because he understood the underlying truth of the source material's simplistic interpretation of events. 300 is about pride, sacrifice and belief in a noble ideal (in this case, freedom) and in that respect, Miller's comic book may be invulnerable to cultural relativism.
There are two performances that should have made A listers out of their actors but, for some reason, never did. The first, of course, is Gerard Butler as Leonidas. It is such a fiery, intense and heroic portrayal that it's comparable to Russel Crowe's own star making turn in Gladiator. Butler could have been the next Mel Gibson, and indeed he channels some of the spirit and conviction of the aging and controversial Hollywood legend, but for whatever reason...Butler's candle faded pretty fast and despite having roles in other films, he seems to have had his 15 minutes of mega-fame. The other performance is David Wenham as Dilios, the poet and storyteller of the 300 Spartans. Wenham delivers his lines with a forceful inspiration that should have served him very well in other projects. When he was on the screen, even with a dominant Butler, he either owned or shared ownership in every scene he was in. This was a magnificent performance by Wenham, and it's a shame we never saw this version of him after this film
If you couldn't tell, I remain very taken with this film and this story.
My rating:
The opposite of Day of the Dead: Bloodline
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2000
- Posts
- 60,434
Q
How lucky to see this not during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as the presidential administration explored avenues to invade Iran.
300 is a cinematically beautiful movie, ill timed. Frank Miller was unapologetic because for him, maybe this was a story about honor and freedom. But call a spade a spade here: 300 was produced by a Hollywood that hates Muslims out of childhood indoctrination, almost as much as it disregards blacks as anything more than an identity project.
You and I both love Spartacus. It’s a lot of action, but it’s also really gay. Naked or near naked men with bulging abs, swollen glutes, greased from the, and seared under, the Capuan sun, a savage rivalry between Scythian and Gaul, contrasted by the binds between Barca and Pietro. Now reflect on 300, Leonida’s and his men sweating and rubbing their hardened, spray on abs, while gripping their long deadly spears.
Hollywood sold men on honor and islamophobia with the gayest 2 hour long Calvin Klein underwear ad, and it’s considered a classic.
How lucky to see this not during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as the presidential administration explored avenues to invade Iran.
300 is a cinematically beautiful movie, ill timed. Frank Miller was unapologetic because for him, maybe this was a story about honor and freedom. But call a spade a spade here: 300 was produced by a Hollywood that hates Muslims out of childhood indoctrination, almost as much as it disregards blacks as anything more than an identity project.
You and I both love Spartacus. It’s a lot of action, but it’s also really gay. Naked or near naked men with bulging abs, swollen glutes, greased from the, and seared under, the Capuan sun, a savage rivalry between Scythian and Gaul, contrasted by the binds between Barca and Pietro. Now reflect on 300, Leonida’s and his men sweating and rubbing their hardened, spray on abs, while gripping their long deadly spears.
Hollywood sold men on honor and islamophobia with the gayest 2 hour long Calvin Klein underwear ad, and it’s considered a classic.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2000
- Posts
- 13,203
The Islamiphobic narrative never took hold for me because I never even interpreted the source material as such.
It never made me fear Islam or Muslims to any greater degree than I did prior to 9/11. 9/11 made me afraid, but even as I was going through the shock of that attack, my rational side knew I had nothing to personally fear. I just needed time to get over my anxieties. Many of which were fueled by the MSM at that time.
I celebrated it as a mythological interpretation of a historical event, a work of fiction that I was never asked to take at face value and which I never did.
I review the film as objectively as I possibly can. Be that in 2006 or 2019.
I can't help how Hollywood intended it or how people took it. I engage with it on my own terms, now as then.
EDIT: My abstaining from the political discourse at this site is because I like the stances that Tolkien and Richard Adams took when they crafted their works; while they would never deny the influences of their life's experiences on how they craft, both of them abhorred allegory and categorically denied there was any allegorical intentions.
I've conducted myself in this fashion here, and I will continue to do so. It's why I answered the way I did in the 'gender/pronoun' thread. Those are cans of worms I choose to keep closed. I think I need to, in order to maintain my sanity in the Twitter era.
It never made me fear Islam or Muslims to any greater degree than I did prior to 9/11. 9/11 made me afraid, but even as I was going through the shock of that attack, my rational side knew I had nothing to personally fear. I just needed time to get over my anxieties. Many of which were fueled by the MSM at that time.
I celebrated it as a mythological interpretation of a historical event, a work of fiction that I was never asked to take at face value and which I never did.
I review the film as objectively as I possibly can. Be that in 2006 or 2019.
I can't help how Hollywood intended it or how people took it. I engage with it on my own terms, now as then.
EDIT: My abstaining from the political discourse at this site is because I like the stances that Tolkien and Richard Adams took when they crafted their works; while they would never deny the influences of their life's experiences on how they craft, both of them abhorred allegory and categorically denied there was any allegorical intentions.
I've conducted myself in this fashion here, and I will continue to do so. It's why I answered the way I did in the 'gender/pronoun' thread. Those are cans of worms I choose to keep closed. I think I need to, in order to maintain my sanity in the Twitter era.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2000
- Posts
- 60,434
Yeah, it’s okay if you want to enjoy it. Just have to admit that it was designed purely to target potential homicidal conscripts with blatant homosexuality.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2000
- Posts
- 13,203
I don't know that I admitted that. I'd agree that Hollywood seized on an opportunity if the argument was convincing enough. But I don't know, for fact, that Miller wrote and illustrated the comic book with that intention. And the movie felt like an honest adaptation of that source. That it was 'timely' just isn't relevant to me on a personal level.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2000
- Posts
- 60,434
The meta is that Frank Miller became the Persian emissary disrespecting the audience out of his own arrogant ignorance. But yeah, great camerawork.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2000
- Posts
- 60,434
the meta according to the definition of self referencing. You know, the real definition, not what some faggy gamers came up with.