[rooster]

Because some people like movies that are intentionally cheesy, probably?

That still doesn't make me understand why it makes it better. It just tells me that people like it for some reason. There's a difference between accepting people like cheese and understanding it. So we don't need the snark, snarkytails. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Snupes]

Snark is always necessary. My phone tried to correct "snark" to "anal", so that was almost hilarious.

But I mean, I don't know what else to say. People like different kinds of things, intentional cheesiness is just silly, grin-producing and fun. If you like campy stuff, it's delightful. I guess I'm not sure what you're looking for in an answer.

[rooster]

Snark is always necessary. My phone tried to correct "snark" to "anal", so that was almost hilarious.

But I mean, I don't know what else to say. People like different kinds of things, intentional cheesiness is just silly, grin-producing and fun. If you like campy stuff, it's delightful. I guess I'm not sure what you're looking for in an answer.

That's okay, it wasn't really a question anyway.

Also, anal is always necessary.

[Saddam Hussein]

All right, so now I've seen AoU, and while I agree that it was a great movie, it's not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination.  They really just crammed way too much shit into this movie, leading to a lot of scenes - mainly the ones dealing with plot and character - feeling incredibly rushed.  The first act suffers from this especially.  In the space of about twenty minutes, the following things happen: The Avengers attack the HYDRA base and defeat Strucker, meet Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, and recover Loki's scepter; Tony and Bruce agree to create Ultron and then go ahead and do just that, and Ultron turns hostile.  And like I said, there are a lot of character moments that seem to be resolved way too quickly.  The decision to create Ultron - and Vision too - should have been a lot more controversial in the movie.  That's an issue that should be getting at least several minutes of focus, not a thirty-second montage.  The personal issues regarding their histories and identities that the characters struggle with are brought up and dismissed very quickly as well.  It really feels like the movie was just zipping through these elements to get to the action, and I was awfully disappointed by that.

Speaking of the action, though, I have no complaints there.  Okay, scratch that.  I do have one complaint - the climax largely being taken up by the Avengers fighting an army of robotic enemies.  Wow, haven't seen that one before!  Keep upping the ante, Whedon!

[Vindictus]

But Saddam they had a big fight together and like the camera panned around them and the music was going BWAARP and I had a boner.

My major beef was the rushed nature of the movie, although I'm not sure how much was Whedon's fault and how much was Marvel trying to set up the next 34928392 sequels. Thor's bath scene in particular was just stupid. They got Skarsgard back and gave him a credit for like 30 seconds of screen time, which leads me to believe the final cut will be much more comprehensive.

[beardo]

All right, so now I've seen AoU, and while I agree that it was a great movie, it's not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination.  They really just crammed way too much shit into this movie, leading to a lot of scenes - mainly the ones dealing with plot and character - feeling incredibly rushed.  The first act suffers from this especially.  In the space of about twenty minutes, the following things happen: The Avengers attack the HYDRA base and defeat Strucker, meet Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, and recover Loki's scepter; Tony and Bruce agree to create Ultron and then go ahead and do just that, and Ultron turns hostile.  And like I said, there are a lot of character moments that seem to be resolved way too quickly.  The decision to create Ultron - and Vision too - should have been a lot more controversial in the movie.  That's an issue that should be getting at least several minutes of focus, not a thirty-second montage.  The personal issues regarding their histories and identities that the characters struggle with are brought up and dismissed very quickly as well.  It really feels like the movie was just zipping through these elements to get to the action, and I was awfully disappointed by that.

Speaking of the action, though, I have no complaints there.  Okay, scratch that.  I do have one complaint - the climax largely being taken up by the Avengers fighting an army of robotic enemies.  Wow, haven't seen that one before!  Keep upping the ante, Whedon!

no your wrong

[Blanko]

Today we'll look at Krzysztof Kieślowski's Three Colors trilogy of films. The films are named after the colours of the French flag, with each film being loosely based on the ideals presented in the French national motto: liberty (Blue), equality (White) and fraternity (Red). Aside from a few cameos and shared motifs, the films share no narrative continuity.

Three Colors: Blue (1993)

The theme of liberty is explored in the form of a widow abandoning her former life in favour of one free of attachments to her former family, after having lost it in a car crash. I can only admire Kieślowski's direction, as we witness the widow's settlement to her new life through constantly varying and fascinating perspectives and liberal handheld camerawork. He's like a better version of Terrence Malick, using his techniques much more economically and efficiently, always knowing how to keep the viewer engaged. Overall, there's very little at fault in this one. It's an extremely solid portrayal of an ideal. 9/10

Three Colors: White (1994)

This one is often singled out as the weakest part on the trilogy, and it's pretty apparent why. It doesn't really seem to know what it wants to be; I guess it's meant to be a black comedy, but Kieślowski frankly doesn't have much of a comedic sense, the plot is pulling in all kinds of directions with new developments coming out of nowhere and character motivations left extremely vague, and even the stylistic approach is replaced by more conventional and static cinematography. I don't really understand what happened here, it doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the trilogy at all. 6/10

Three Colors: Red (1994)

This one is back to form; the style and sense of purpose both reinstated. All of these films have coloured motifs matching the titles, but this one is very noticeably a red film, with nearly every shot containing something red, or being set in a location decorated red. The story follows a model who comes to bond with a retired judge through unlikely circumstances, as well as a man who becomes a judge over the course of the film and his relationship with a woman. The two stories are interconnected and draw parallels to each other, and the way Kieślowski follows these two stories is amazing: shots overlooking the streets of Paris, observing both of our main characters through their apartment windows in single cuts. It's not quite as phenomenal as Blue, but it's definitely still a great accomplishment in its own right. 9/10

[Saddam Hussein]

[In AoU] no one could die due to sequel plans

lolwut?  Quicksilver died.  Which I actually kind of liked, seeing how the MCU has an irritating habit of pretending to kill characters off and then bringing them back later.  And I'm also glad they didn't kill off - "fridge," if you will - Scarlet Witch instead.  For feminist ramblings on what I'm talking about, see here.

[Rama Set]

[In AoU] no one could die due to sequel plans

lolwut?  Quicksilver died.  Which I actually kind of liked, seeing how the MCU has an irritating habit of pretending to kill characters off and then bringing them back later.  And I'm also glad they didn't kill off - "fridge," if you will - Scarlet Witch instead.  For feminist ramblings on what I'm talking about, see here.

Considering who the villain is in the next Avengers movie, life and death could very well be quite malleable concepts.

[Saddam Hussein]

Speaking of Thanos, the mid-credits scene annoyed me at first.  It didn't seem to make any sense, what with the Infinity Gauntlet being in a very secure place in Asgard, and that there was no way Marvel could justify him having casually stolen it off-screen or whatever.  But then I read this, and now I am satisfied.

[Rama Set]

I'm not very familiar with the infinity gauntlet; is the glove itself magical?  Or is it just the stones?

[Vindictus]

[In AoU] no one could die due to sequel plans

lolwut?  Quicksilver died.  Which I actually kind of liked, seeing how the MCU has an irritating habit of pretending to kill characters off and then bringing them back later.  And I'm also glad they didn't kill off - "fridge," if you will - Scarlet Witch instead.  For feminist ramblings on what I'm talking about, see here.

He was introduced in the same movie, so he doesn't count. It annihilates the tension when the big boys talk about "blood on the floor" in the final fight, but basically no one bites the dust (or even really gets hurt). Not that it matters, as the final fight was enjoyable enough and the death scene was done well.

[Blanko]

Millennium Mambo (Hou Hsiao-Hsien, 2001)

I mentioned in my Three Times review that Hou's slow, naturalistic style would be better suited for a feature-length format, and based on this film it definitely seems to be the case. Some of you may remember that I had an issue with Tsai's minimalism in Vive L'Amour, but here Hou really shows how to utilise it effectively; the average shot length in this film is in the multi-minute range, and most of it has no dialogue or very little of it. Instead most of this ostensibly simple coming-of-age story is told through occasional narration and subtle character interactions and movements, and it works entirely thanks to Hou's fucking phenomenal direction; the actors are constantly moving thoughout shots and so is the camera, snapping in and out of focus, moving into close-ups to display emotion and fluidly moving out again to progress the scene, and utilising space so creatively that the constraints of small apartments (which is what most of the film is set in) practically disappear. Combined with the mixture of neon colors, beautiful use of focus, naturalistic acting, and a soundtrack comprising of dreamy dance music, Hou masterfully sets you in the atmosphere of fleeting youth at the dawn of the millennium in a big city, which is ultimately what this film is all about. Fantastic film. 10/10

[Crudblud]

The Avengers (Joss Whedon)

More like Dross Whedon. Jesus Christ what a piece of shit. But seriously I thought this was pretty good. I don't like it as much as Captain America, but clearly Whedon knows how to tell a joke, and the ones he drops throughout the big action sequences that abound in the third act keep it from becoming non-stop explodey punchy bangy crashy zoomy anus. Also, who knew, it turns out Mark Ruffalo can act, and Tom Hiddleston can make an impression, sort of. Tony Stark is as annoying as ever, and, oboy, Iron Mangina 3 is the next destination on the Odyssey (s)hit list, but it turns out he's pretty vital, a little too vital, even, to the team. Half the story seems to revolve around him doing cool shit while the rest of the team stands around punching Chimichangas. Okay, not everyone can fly, not everyone has an armament checklist to match Arsenal Gear, but still. And I guess I'm being a little unfair, since the action is more spread out across the board, although let's be honest, there's only so much you can do with a bow and arrows, and Iron Mandela is in your face with red and yellow danger colours at all times, so it's only natural that he would be a more prominent feature in retrospect than Black Body Warmer Guy or Bipedal American Flag.

It was admittedly neat seeing a lot of characters from different films brought together in a single feature, and Whedon manages to balance screen time well over all, without feeling like he's trying to juggle too many things. Not only that, he seems to have gotten the characters as they were in the other films, which gives The Avengers an air of authenticity, and a cohesion with the rest of the MCU that avoids making the film, as it easily could have been, a gimmicky monster mash type affair. It's a solid action movie helmed by someone who seems to care about the source material, and not in a "Zack Snyder cares about Watchmen" kind of way.

P.S.: Harry Dean Stanton always improves whatever he's in, even if it's just a cameo.

[Snupes]

^ Yay !! !  !!! I'm always excited when someone whose opinion I value likes stuff that is dear to me.

Dredd (Pete Travis, 2012)

Decided to watch this on a whim while other stuff downloaded and I was going through my previous computer's "stuff to watch" folder. I never thought Karl Urban would be able to star in something that actually makes me wish it would last longer. So far, that is still true. I expected a bit more out of this movie than I got. It was a fun action movie, and surprisingly gorgeous at times, but not much more. The bit worth focusing is "surprisingly gorgeous at times". Within the film there's a drug tellingly called "Slo-Mo": you take the drug and it feels like life goes by at 1% of its regular speed. During these moments, the whole film goes into extreme slow motion and the music slows down to a hundredth of its speed right with it. It's about the only real highlight of the film. Everything gets overexposed, gorgeous and atmospheric...even when bullets are passing through peoples' heads.

Anyway, I can't keep a thought longer than a few moments anymore, so I forget what else I was going to say about the movie. It was alright. Wouldn't watch it again, but the soundtrack was actually pretty great.


Moonrise Kingdom (Wes Anderson, 2012)

I neeed to stop really wanting to see things. This was really disappointing as well. Don't get me wrong, it was a good film, just not nearly as phenomenal as I'd heard and expected. The whole first two-thirds of the film were kind of a drag, and most of that is because the film relies heavily on child actors. The kids in this are good, for child actors, but...maybe other people can look that over, but for me it's really, really jarring. It bothers me. Add that to the fact that much of the narrative and momentum relies on them and emotional moments, and it was just a dead, hour-long slog that I could not get into.

Now, the last third of the film...well, it gets completely ridiculous. It was wonderful. I feel like I watched two movies here. One that bored me to death (despite being very pretty) and one that was what I wished Moonrise Kingdom would have been, that I was utterly enthralled with.

The characters (mainly the adults) are one of the movie's strongest points. They're almost all caricatures, and each of them plays their characters whole-heartedly and exactly exaggeratedly enough to be compelling yet amusing. I'm not much a fan of Ed Norton, but seeing him play an over-eager boy scout leader is great, especially the more ridiculous the situations get. The movie's real highlight for me, though, is the music. Holy goddamn hell does this movie have amazing music. Even if the last third hadn't picked it up and given me something to enjoy, I still would have sat through it just for the peculiar, wonderfully-done soundtrack. Even if you have no interest in the move itself, I would recommend giving the soundtrack a listen because it is great and really good and it's great

So yeah.

[Rama Set]

The Avengers (Joss Whedon)

More like Dross Whedon. Jesus Christ what a piece of shit. But seriously I thought this was pretty good. I don't like it as much as Captain America, but clearly Whedon knows how to tell a joke, and the ones he drops throughout the big action sequences that abound in the third act keep it from becoming non-stop explodey punchy bangy crashy zoomy anus. Also, who knew, it turns out Mark Ruffalo can act, and Tom Hiddleston can make an impression, sort of. Tony Stark is as annoying as ever, and, oboy, Iron Mangina 3 is the next destination on the Odyssey (s)hit list, but it turns out he's pretty vital, a little too vital, even, to the team. Half the story seems to revolve around him doing cool shit while the rest of the team stands around punching Chimichangas. Okay, not everyone can fly, not everyone has an armament checklist to match Arsenal Gear, but still. And I guess I'm being a little unfair, since the action is more spread out across the board, although let's be honest, there's only so much you can do with a bow and arrows, and Iron Mandela is in your face with red and yellow danger colours at all times, so it's only natural that he would be a more prominent feature in retrospect than Black Body Warmer Guy or Bipedal American Flag.

It was admittedly neat seeing a lot of characters from different films brought together in a single feature, and Whedon manages to balance screen time well over all, without feeling like he's trying to juggle too many things. Not only that, he seems to have gotten the characters as they were in the other films, which gives The Avengers an air of authenticity, and a cohesion with the rest of the MCU that avoids making the film, as it easily could have been, a gimmicky monster mash type affair. It's a solid action movie helmed by someone who seems to care about the source material, and not in a "Zack Snyder cares about Watchmen" kind of way.

P.S.: Harry Dean Stanton always improves whatever he's in, even if it's just a cameo.

You never liked Mark Ruffalo?  Have you seen Zodiac?

[Crudblud]

The Avengers (Joss Whedon)

More like Dross Whedon. Jesus Christ what a piece of shit. But seriously I thought this was pretty good. I don't like it as much as Captain America, but clearly Whedon knows how to tell a joke, and the ones he drops throughout the big action sequences that abound in the third act keep it from becoming non-stop explodey punchy bangy crashy zoomy anus. Also, who knew, it turns out Mark Ruffalo can act, and Tom Hiddleston can make an impression, sort of. Tony Stark is as annoying as ever, and, oboy, Iron Mangina 3 is the next destination on the Odyssey (s)hit list, but it turns out he's pretty vital, a little too vital, even, to the team. Half the story seems to revolve around him doing cool shit while the rest of the team stands around punching Chimichangas. Okay, not everyone can fly, not everyone has an armament checklist to match Arsenal Gear, but still. And I guess I'm being a little unfair, since the action is more spread out across the board, although let's be honest, there's only so much you can do with a bow and arrows, and Iron Mandela is in your face with red and yellow danger colours at all times, so it's only natural that he would be a more prominent feature in retrospect than Black Body Warmer Guy or Bipedal American Flag.

It was admittedly neat seeing a lot of characters from different films brought together in a single feature, and Whedon manages to balance screen time well over all, without feeling like he's trying to juggle too many things. Not only that, he seems to have gotten the characters as they were in the other films, which gives The Avengers an air of authenticity, and a cohesion with the rest of the MCU that avoids making the film, as it easily could have been, a gimmicky monster mash type affair. It's a solid action movie helmed by someone who seems to care about the source material, and not in a "Zack Snyder cares about Watchmen" kind of way.

P.S.: Harry Dean Stanton always improves whatever he's in, even if it's just a cameo.

You never liked Mark Ruffalo?  Have you seen Zodiac?

Yes.

[beardo]

lol

[Crudblud]

Touch of Evil (Orson Welles)

Welles's classic film noir is fucking weird. Everyone stumbles around doing weird shit, Charlton Heston plays a Mexican, Orson Welles garbles ever other line in one of the most bizarre and intentionally off-the-rails performances I've ever seen, and Henry Mancini's score swaggers its way into the action and lingers around like a drunken onlooker. Right from the start, with one of the best tracking shots I've ever seen, I was drawn into the film's strange border world between Mexico and the US, where the people are crazy and Orson Welles is crazier. Easily in the top two best films I've seen so far this year.

[spoon]

Touch of Evil (Orson Welles)

Welles's classic film noir is fucking weird. Everyone stumbles around doing weird shit, Charlton Heston plays a Mexican, Orson Welles garbles ever other line in one of the most bizarre and intentionally off-the-rails performances I've ever seen, and Henry Mancini's score swaggers its way into the action and lingers around like a drunken onlooker. Right from the start, with one of the best tracking shots I've ever seen, I was drawn into the film's strange border world between Mexico and the US, where the people are crazy and Orson Welles is crazier. Easily in the top two best films I've seen so far this year.

I watched the opening shot of that about a week ago. It's incredible. I need to see it.