Schoolio's Movie Corner [Archive] - Page 61 - Coachella Valley Music & Arts Festival Message Board

chairmenmeow47

08-24-2009, 06:50 PM

i really wish that i had time to go through and read all the prior comments related to district 9. i will have to do that over the course of this week. for now, here are my thoughts, not having read anything y'all have posted:

i really liked it. perhaps cause i didn't go in expecting anything at all, but it was nice to see a fresh cast. i also really enjoy sci-fiesque movies like this that show us this crazy alternate universe, but don't spend the entire moving explaining every.little.detail and how things were resolved. children of men was good that way too, here's some exposition and then BOOM, here's the story.

i really liked the story of vickus as well. he went from this annoying, clueless michael scott type fellow to a man with a purpose and that transition was done really well. the weaponry was interesting. the aliens were quite likeable, especially with all the goofy stuff like loving cat food & the nigerian scams. the "bad guy" looked a lot like the father from juno.

the one thing i liked about the documentary tid-bits that was cool was it gave us a quick overview of the state of affairs of the world due to all this alien stuff and it also let us know up front that vickus was not going to be ok. that stayed in my mind the rest of the movie, knowing that every attempt at "heroism" was probably going to end with him leaving everyone & the life that he knows.

all in all, i loved it, include parallels to current political situation. the quote that stands out the most is "if they were from our planet, i could understand..."

will there be a district 10?

--------------------------------------

also watched cat on a hot tin roof this weekend. forgot how much tennessee williams gets to me, though all the elizabeth taylor monologues brought back flashbacks of girls doing horrible renditions of these monologues in high school, ugh. it took a long time for anything to really happen, but i stated to get more engaged once burl ives took the screen. man, that guy is fucking awesome. not many people can play dying for half a show that well, but he was top notch. if it weren't for him, i'd like the movie a whole lot less.

i do think it's retarded that elizabeth taylor's character (maggie?) let that guy jerk her around for so long, christ, get some self-respect and a fucking job and leave the asshole!!!

AlecEiffel

08-24-2009, 08:26 PM

the aliens were quite likeable, especially with all the goofy stuff like loving cat food & the nigerian scams.

Yeah, because junkies are goofy and likable. I know a lot of people found this funny, but I think they were missing the point. They found a drug and the gangs and government were both using it to control them. I don't think that's very funny.

the "bad guy" looked a lot like the father from juno.

Please do not reduce J.K. Simmons to being merely "the father from juno".

mountmccabe

08-24-2009, 08:56 PM

will there be a district 10?

The film cost $30 million to make and made $37 million the first weekend. It is now up to double that. So most assuredly, yes.

Yeah, because junkies are goofy and likable. I know a lot of people found this funny, but I think they were missing the point. They found a drug and the gangs and government were both using it to control them. I don't think that's very funny.

Just so we're clear, you're referring to cat food as a drug?

I thought them being Nigerian scammers was funny and laughed at the use of cat food as well. And I would say that laughing at those jokes helped cement them in my mind and didn't ruin the overall impact of the conditions the aliens lived in. Everything still looked horrible and enough of them were beat and/or died for the slightest of provocations for that to be brushed off by a few jokes.

thatfinkleygirl

08-24-2009, 11:31 PM

I saw Inglourious Basterds the other day and thought it was most excellent. It's a very well executed piece of cinema - great writing (as usual), great acting, great cinematography. Throughout the film I was either laughing, cheering, or chewing on my fist in an attempt to alleviate tension. I left the theater with a huge smile on my face and a strong desire to turn right back around and shell out $11 to watch it again. It made me remember why I love movies.

JewFace

08-25-2009, 02:45 AM

Saw Inglorious Basterds tonight. Pretty much what I expected. Ridiculous, over the top, stylish, slick and very entertaining. It was like a Jewish Rambo. And you guys were right, the casting (perhaps with the exception of BJ Novak and maybe Mike Myers) is absolutely perfect in this one. He could easily be forgotten, because he isn't seen after the first 15 mins of the film, but I thought Denis Menochet as the farmer hiding a Jewish family was brilliant. What a quiet, dignified and emotionally rich performance from this man.

RotationSlimWang

08-25-2009, 02:59 AM

SoulDischarge

08-25-2009, 07:58 AM

He could easily be forgotten, because he isn't seen after the first 15 mins of the film, but I thought Denis Menochet as the farmer hiding a Jewish family was brilliant. What a quiet, dignified and emotionally rich performance from this man.

Totally agree.

chairmenmeow47

08-25-2009, 08:58 AM

Yeah, because junkies are goofy and likable. I know a lot of people found this funny, but I think they were missing the point. They found a drug and the gangs and government were both using it to control them. I don't think that's very funny.

Please do not reduce J.K. Simmons to being merely "the father from juno".

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, this made my morning. k dude, sorry for not taking this movie super cereal enough.

faxman75

08-25-2009, 09:31 AM

Yeah, because junkies are goofy and likable. I know a lot of people found this funny, but I think they were missing the point. They found a drug and the gangs and government were both using it to control them. I don't think that's very funny.

Well then throwing this ultra serious real life humanity in the midst of a ridiculous sci fi film sort of deflates the cause doesn't it? I mean, you don't have to spell out the similarities but if they wanted to create compassion for the giant shrimp shouldn't they have not made them giant shrimp and made them more human and less like cockroaches? It's also hard to have compassion when zero back story is given regarding the creatures.

Just to be clear I recognized the greater meaning but I failed to feel any compassion for a bunch of shrimp who's ship stalled above Africa for 20 years.

chairmenmeow47

08-25-2009, 09:35 AM

i feel compassion for them. i just also think it's funny to be going crazy over cat food. i get that they're addicted and being taken advantage of, but it doesn't make it any less funny. just like in munich i knew eric bana was remembering all the times he saved the jews which is serious and all, but those memories juxtaposed with him having trouble enjoying fucking his wife was still funny to me. jesus christ, my name is chairmenmeow47, i obviously find funny in things that aren't supposed to be funny, this shouldn't be so shocking or some sort of great revalation of my lack of humanity.

AlecEiffel

08-25-2009, 09:48 AM

I didn't say you had a lack of humanity, come on now.

amyzzz

08-25-2009, 09:52 AM

I took an evening nap before we went to see a late showing of District 9, and I hated it, and now I'm wondering if I was just too sleepy/grumpy to enjoy the damn movie. I clearly didn't get all the nuances of the story that you all got.

mountmccabe

08-25-2009, 09:54 AM

Well then throwing this ultra serious real life humanity in the midst of a ridiculous sci fi film sort of deflates the cause doesn't it? I mean, you don't have to spell out the similarities but if they wanted to create compassion for the giant shrimp shouldn't they have not made them giant shrimp and made them more human and less like cockroaches? It's also hard to have compassion when zero back story is given regarding the creatures.

Just to be clear I recognized the greater meaning but I failed to feel any compassion for a bunch of shrimp who's ship stalled above Africa for 20 years.

If you're saying that they should've looked and acted more human for you to care then I really don't think you got the greater meaning.

As for the background, I thought they gave enough clues for us to piece together ideas. These weren't the elites of their soceity, they weren't diplomats or scientists or warriors; they were workers. They were malnourished and, it seemed, had no control over what was going on on the ship; my guess would be there had been leaders on board and they died off or abandoned and the ship still ran its preset course to Earth.

As for what was going on: they were beat, mistreated and ostracized from the beginning. They didn't have a chance to act human, they had to eat and try and make their shelter more reasonable. The cat food wasn't a fucking drug; it was sustenance.

When you oppress people and fence them in and beat them and allow gangs to be the ones running the place - the aliens were not allowed to have their own guns - and when you occasionally abduct individuals to do experiments on them and keep them at a subsistence level they - for the most part - aren't going to act very human. It doesn't care how much a person looks like you; if you make them fight to eat they're going to look like an animal. Having the aliens look cute or even more human-like would defeat the purpose. They shouldn't have to look like us to be treated decently.

Calling them prawns (or "shrimp") was fucking offensive. That's what the movie was about; how fucking horrible they were treated.

Young blood

08-25-2009, 09:58 AM

This move sounds like its about my homeless cousin in Louisiana. Im going to have to see it.

chairmenmeow47

08-25-2009, 09:59 AM

i also agree with john :)

amyzzz

08-25-2009, 10:00 AM

As for what was going on: they were beat, mistreated and ostracized from the beginning. They didn't have a chance to act human, they had to eat and try and make their shelter more reasonable. The cat food wasn't a fucking drug; it was sustenance.

I didn't think that part was funny because I also saw it as their food, not as a "drug."

AlecEiffel

08-25-2009, 10:09 AM

If you're saying that they should've looked and acted more human for you to care then I really don't think you got the greater meaning.

As for the background, I thought they gave enough clues for us to piece together ideas. These weren't the elites of their soceity, they weren't diplomats or scientists or warriors; they were workers. They were malnourished and, it seemed, had no control over what was going on on the ship; my guess would be there had been leaders on board and they died off or abandoned and the ship still ran its preset course to Earth.

As for what was going on: they were beat, mistreated and ostracized from the beginning. They didn't have a chance to act human, they had to eat and try and make their shelter more reasonable. The cat food wasn't a fucking drug; it was sustenance.

When you oppress people and fence them in and beat them and allow gangs to be the ones running the place - the aliens were not allowed to have their own guns - and when you occasionally abduct individuals to do experiments on them and keep them at a subsistence level they - for the most part - aren't going to act very human. It doesn't care how much a person looks like you; if you make them fight to eat they're going to look like an animal. Having the aliens look cute or even more human-like would defeat the purpose. They shouldn't have to look like us to be treated decently.

Calling them prawns (or "shrimp") was fucking offensive. That's what the movie was about; how fucking horrible they were treated.

I agree with everything you say here except for the bit about cat food. I would say that it's there food if they weren't also show eating meat several times. It was very clearly supposed to be a drug. They were addicted to it, it made them behave erratically and they were willing to cut themselves cheap just to get a tiny bit of it. That scene where they trade a huge amount of weaponry for a tiny amount of cat food was very obviously supposed to be a commentary on the stereotypical junkie.

faxman75

08-25-2009, 10:23 AM

If you're saying that they should've looked and acted more human for you to care then I really don't think you got the greater meaning.

No, i'm saying they should have gave me reason to feel compassion and IMO they failed to do so. A handful of ruthless gangbangers rationing out cat food to a million cat food addicted shrimp who were stranded above continent with real problems doesn't do anything for me.

As for the background, I thought they gave enough clues for us to piece together ideas. These weren't the elites of their soceity, they weren't diplomats or scientists or warriors; they were workers. They were malnourished and, it seemed, had no control over what was going on on the ship; my guess would be there had been leaders on board and they died off or abandoned and the ship still ran its preset course to Earth.

That's a fair enough assumption. We knew they were grunts, maybe even slaves but there wasn't enough character in these creatures for me to find them the least interesting. The addiction to cat food makes people either giggle or cringe and outside of their absurd eating addiction, they were basically a bunch of giant shrimp. ( I know I keep saying this, i'm humoring myself )

As for what was going on: they were beat, mistreated and ostracized from the beginning. They didn't have a chance to act human, they had to eat and try and make their shelter more reasonable. The cat food wasn't a fucking drug; it was sustenance.

When you oppress people and fence them in and beat them and allow gangs to be the ones running the place - the aliens were not allowed to have their own guns - and when you occasionally abduct individuals to do experiments on them and keep them at a subsistence level they - for the most part - aren't going to act very human. It doesn't care how much a person looks like you; if you make them fight to eat they're going to look like an animal. Having the aliens look cute or even more human-like would defeat the purpose. They shouldn't have to look like us to be treated decently.

Calling them prawns (or "shrimp") was fucking offensive. That's what the movie was about; how fucking horrible they were treated.

I got all of that. I just didn't care. There are other characteristics a creature can have to create compassion. The message gets lost in the absurdity of it all. I didn't care about the humans or the prawns in this film.

One second i'm laughing at how silly the guys hand looks now that he's turning into a prawn and the next moment i'm supposed to be effected by the prawns mistreatment. They were slave aliens who coincidentally were stranded above Africa. It had potential to be an interesting movie but to me it was a silly alien flick that could have been more enjoyable had they decided on either serious or cheezy sci fi flick rather than try to give us both.

amyzzz

08-25-2009, 10:27 AM

It had potential to be an interesting movie but to me it was a silly alien flick that could have been more enjoyable had they decided on either serious or cheezy sci fi flick rather than try to give us both.
I agree with this -- I also was frustrated that the movie didn't choose between cheesy or serious. Am I supposed to laugh at them or empathize with them?

chairmenmeow47

08-25-2009, 10:45 AM

why can't you do both?

for me, i like movies that make you both laugh & cry for the characters. any movie that only tries to make you do one or the other ends up falling a bit flat for me.

RotationSlimWang

08-25-2009, 10:49 AM

M Sparks

08-25-2009, 10:52 AM

Please do not reduce J.K. Simmons to being merely "the father from juno".

It's bad enough that everyone mixes him up with Daniel Von Bargen.

If anything, the guy in District 9 looked like Jessie Ventura.

AlecEiffel

08-25-2009, 11:02 AM

Without having seen District 9, you sound like a fucking idiot, Alec. The obvious analogy in the example you're describing is to a refugee camp. Who the fuck gives drugs to refugees? Why is it somehow less believable to think that they're going apeshit over just getting some food to eat? Wouldn't that be much more in line with the commentary of the film and have more impact?

having not seen the movie you should shut the fuck up, but I think the initial idea was that they gave them cat food as a cheap food source and it ended up have an unexpected effect on them which both the government and the gangs took advantage of. It shows them eating meat several times, it does not show them going apeshit over the meat like they do for the cat food. The exposition scene that explains the cat food also says they were spending time with human prostitutes. It's clearly supposed to show how drugs and crime affect impoverished areas.

M Sparks

08-25-2009, 11:03 AM

Without having seen District 9, you sound like a fucking idiot, Alec. The obvious analogy in the example you're describing is to a refugee camp. Who the fuck gives drugs to refugees? Why is it somehow less believable to think that they're going apeshit over just getting some food to eat? Wouldn't that be much more in line with the commentary of the film and have more impact?

To be fair, they do indicate directly that the cat food has some kind of drug effect on them....I think they compare it to catnip...and they show aliens trading away everything they have for it, even though there IS other food shown.

But the idea that something funny can't be social commentary or vice-versa is pretty bizarre. If anything, humor makes the best social commentary. I personally didn't think the cat food bit was that funny...it was just a throwaway gag...but it's not like I went "boo hoo, isn't the plight of the drug addict sad".

Drinkey McDrinkerstein

08-25-2009, 11:06 AM

Does everybody complaining about the humor in D9 also hate Dr. Strangelove, arguably one of the finest pieces of social commentary (satire) ever made?

RotationSlimWang

08-25-2009, 11:07 AM

having not seen the movie you should shut the fuck up, but I think the initial idea was that they gave them cat food as a cheap food source and it ended up have an unexpected effect on them which both the government and the gangs took advantage of. It shows them eating meat several times, it does not show them going apeshit over the meat like they do for the cat food. The exposition scene that explains the cat food also says they were spending time with human prostitutes. It's clearly supposed to show how drugs and crime affect impoverished areas.

You act like crackheads aren't funny.

amyzzz

08-25-2009, 11:09 AM

Does everybody complaining about the humor in D9 also hate Dr. Strangelove, arguably one of the finest pieces of social commentary (satire) ever made?
It just didn't come off well to me. I've seen it done better.

faxman75

08-25-2009, 11:11 AM

why can't you do both?

for me, i like movies that make you both laugh & cry for the characters. any movie that only tries to make you do one or the other ends up falling a bit flat for me.

It was the feeling of ambivalence I guess. Of course there are tons of movies that can make you laugh and cry but this movie didn't cause me to have any strong feelings about anyone. The strongest part of the story that can try to get you to emote is how helpless the guy feels as he realizes he is turning into an alien and the government is after him and his wife has been lied to and has given up hope. Even that part of the story wasn't that great because the scenes with her and her dad seems like something recycled from 20 other movies.

faxman75

08-25-2009, 11:12 AM

Does everybody complaining about the humor in D9 also hate Dr. Strangelove, arguably one of the finest pieces of social commentary (satire) ever made?

I have never seen Dr. Strangelove so I can't answer your question.

AlecEiffel

08-25-2009, 11:13 AM

Does everybody complaining about the humor in D9 also hate Dr. Strangelove, arguably one of the finest pieces of social commentary (satire) ever made?

I just want to make it clear that I'm not complaining about the humor. I think I came off as much more of a bleeding heart than I intended to in my initial post on the subject. I just think that people who had the 'aw, that's cute and funny' reaction to the aliens being addicted to something kind of missed the point.

mountmccabe

08-25-2009, 11:30 AM

why can't you do both?

for me, i like movies that make you both laugh & cry for the characters. any movie that only tries to make you do one or the other ends up falling a bit flat for me.

Agreed.

To be fair, they do indicate directly that the cat food has some kind of drug effect on them....I think they compare it to catnip...and they show aliens trading away everything they have for it, even though there IS other food shown.

Ahh, I had forgotten about that. So the idea that IT WAS DEFINITELY NOT ABOUT DRUGS is definitely wrong; though, really, I didn't even mean anything that far anyway. I did, of course, recognize that there was at least some of what was going on there was commenty on junkies/etc; I just didn't think that was the main focus.

OK, so the cat food thing was at least mostly about drugs.

But the idea that something funny can't be social commentary or vice-versa is pretty bizarre. If anything, humor makes the best social commentary. I personally didn't think the cat food bit was that funny...it was just a throwaway gag...but it's not like I went "boo hoo, isn't the plight of the drug addict sad".

I agree here, too. I didn't really laugh at the cat food but it's clear that that is at least some of what they were going for - which is what we're talking about. I was disgusted by the cat food; I think it's pretty clear that they were going for that, too.

One of the things I liked about District 9 was that it walked a good line between action and serious commentary, between humor and pathos. It doesn't make for a very clean movie but it makes for a more broad/rich movie, which I prefer.

chairmenmeow47

08-25-2009, 11:45 AM

AlecEiffel

08-25-2009, 11:51 AM

understandable, alec. i just think it's possible to get it AND laugh at it :p

and if aliens eat meat, then why wouldn't cat food be a form of food for them? cat food contains meat product, therefore it wouldn't be far fetched to assume that they gain sustinence from cat food. i would compare it more to candy, not only do you get sustinence, but it's fucking addicting too. i completely agree that it was shown as a form of addiction, but it's not like crack, more like candy :)

I think it is possible to laugh at it and understand it, I was just under the impression that you weren't really getting it. I was being kind of a prick and I apologize.

It was stronger than candy. You don't sell all your super sweet alien weapons for a hundred pieces of candy.

amyzzz

08-25-2009, 12:05 PM

I almost wanted to walk out of District 9 early on. I didn't like the characters, I didn't like the violence, I didn't like the documentary style.... it got better more toward the end with the main guy turning into them and empathizing with them (which is good because Jacob loved it and got mad at me for hating it). I feel like I should like it, and I'm struggling to determine why I don't. I felt similarly about There Will Be Blood -- didn't like it but felt like I should.

mountmccabe

08-25-2009, 12:11 PM

and if aliens eat meat, then why wouldn't cat food be a form of food for them? cat food contains meat product, therefore it wouldn't be far fetched to assume that they gain sustinence from cat food. i would compare it more to candy, not only do you get sustinence, but it's fucking addicting too. i completely agree that it was shown as a form of addiction, but it's not like crack, more like candy :)

I definitely think there's more going on than just the "ooh, drugs" angle. That being said I still think the drugs angle is rather prominent.

Drugs/food or candy is like laughter/seriousness. It can be both.

It was stronger than candy. You don't sell all your super sweet alien weapons for a hundred pieces of candy.

The aliens that "sold" it were thinking, hmm, why should I bother to keep trying to hide this thing any longer. It's just putting ME at risk; if MNU found it they'd certainly beat me and probably kill/abduct me too. If shit really comes down we'll be able to use our more easily hidden weapons to get at this and use it. Also the Nigerians aren't going to take it apart and try to reverse engineer it... they're dumb enough to think they'll figure out a way to use it. Yay cat food.

chairmenmeow47

08-25-2009, 12:14 PM

AlecEiffel

08-25-2009, 12:22 PM

i kept waiting for a nigerean to tell a prawn that his brother is an imprisoned nigerian prince who just needs that prawn's money to get him out of jail and once released, the prawn would be showered with nigerian prince riches!

This is getting off topic, but my friend's dad fell for one of those, but instead of it being a Nigerian Prince it was a Princess and when she got out she was going to come live with him and they would be in love forever with her millions of dollars to support them. He ended up losing pretty much everything. That is an example of something that is hilarious and sad.

chairmenmeow47

08-25-2009, 12:24 PM

ha ha ha, way to bring it all together :)

RotationSlimWang

08-25-2009, 12:46 PM

I feel like I should like it, and I'm struggling to determine why I don't. I felt similarly about There Will Be Blood -- didn't like it but felt like I should.

Did the aliens sound black?

RotationSlimWang

08-25-2009, 12:47 PM

I have never seen Dr. Strangelove so I can't answer your question.

Get the fuck out of this thread and don't come back until you have.

faxman75

08-25-2009, 01:00 PM

Get the fuck out of this thread and don't come back until you have.

I'll check it out feisty.

M Sparks

08-25-2009, 01:07 PM

The other day on XM, Ron and Fez were talking about the South African runner who may or may not be a man. At one point, Ron mumbled "She's probably half fuckin' prawn."

humanoid

08-25-2009, 01:10 PM

Previously, I had almost no interest at all in seeing District 9, but now I want to just so I can join in the fight around here.

and Faxman, watch Dr. Strangelove...come on!

bobert

08-25-2009, 01:14 PM

People need to quit using the word ambivalence in all it's variations. Even if you are a part of the 1% of English speaking persons who actually understands the definition of the word, you're probably just confusing the rest of the world by using it correctly.

Instead, try apathetic, indifference or possibly the phrase "I really didn't give a fuck."

I'm normally not a stickler for grammar but that one bothers me.

M Sparks

08-25-2009, 01:46 PM

People need to quit using the word ambivalence in all it's variations. Even if you are a part of the 1% of English speaking persons who actually understands the definition of the word, you're probably just confusing the rest of the world by using it correctly.

Instead, try apathetic, indifference or possibly the phrase "I really didn't give a fuck."

I never thought about it but you're right. Most people get it dead wrong.

I actually AM ambivalent about District 9 though- I loved it, but I could tell you thirty things that were wrong with it.

bobert

08-25-2009, 01:48 PM

I actually AM ambivalent about District 9 though- I loved it, but I could tell you thirty things that were wrong with it.

All right, you get a pass. Welcome to the minority.

ivankay

08-25-2009, 05:21 PM

i just finished watching Inglorious Basterds again. This time in English. It definitely got better with the added goodness of knowing what was being discussed. Pretty fucking excellent (although i still have the problem with a song).

MissingPerson

08-25-2009, 05:25 PM

Saw it this evening, yeah. Enjoyed it. Didn't have any of the high points of Kill Bill maybe, but a better movie over all.

Fun, nothing mind-blowing, but fun. Yes that farmer dude was terrific, and the Jew Hunter was great.

iv3rdawG

08-25-2009, 05:36 PM

Ivankay, I actually really enjoyed that whole scene. That was a great montage.

And I really love that movie.

whynotsmile99

08-25-2009, 05:37 PM

ivankay

08-25-2009, 05:47 PM

Ivankay, I actually really enjoyed that whole scene. That was a great montage.

And I really love that movie.

i'm gonna agree on the cut and content on the montage.

MissingPerson

08-25-2009, 05:50 PM

ivankay

08-25-2009, 05:56 PM

Response to above Spoiler:

i don't think Marcel burned. He was in a position to easily escape from where he was. Out the back door and down the alley. The machine gunning was psycho killer high over being able to kill the highest of the high in the Nazi command.

iv3rdawG

08-25-2009, 05:56 PM

-----SPOILERS-----

I think Marcel and Shoshanna (at least Shosanna for sure-that's what Tarantino said at least) were ready and willing to go down with the cinema. As for the two Basterds, I think that they would have had time to get out, hence going and shooting up the audience. But they were both unaware that Landa had left that dynamite in the opera box so when it went off it just killed them instantly.

M Sparks

08-25-2009, 06:10 PM

Sorta Spoiler...

Shoshanna was locked in the projector booth. Back then, these were basically vaults. They were designed to keep fire in, because not only was the film super flameable, but the projectors themselves were fire hazards. So why wouldn't they keep fire out?

whynotsmile99

08-25-2009, 06:37 PM

HEY THIS MIGHT HAVE MILD District 9 SPOILERISH DISCUSSION

I thought the humanization of the aliens and the portrayal of most (if not all) of the humans as monstrous was one of the best aspects of the film.

And I think the lead human was supposed to rub you the wrong way. He had no grasp of the situation and was a selfish half wit pencil pusher playing out of his league.

Also what were the plot holes of which you speak?

spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers....

the problem with the aliens being humanized was that they were too literally human beings. The analogies to apartheid were so hit over the head there was really no point in making them aliens at all. I realize the aliens have been here for 20 years when the movie beings after the intro, but they were esentially human characters. These aliens were a step up from Men in Black. They were boring. They were poorly written human characters in a alien costume. They traded with evil Nigerians, they banged hookers, they ran from the cops, they have conversations with humans. Did I feel bad for them? Not really. They really didn't do shit or say anything remotely interesting. There was no alien to care about. that main alien, Charles Johnson or something was weak. he wasn't given any personality. was he good? evil? Conflicted? Who knows. he wanted his juice to get off the planet. oh and he has a little alien baby with big doe eyes. AWWWWW

the movie would have worked well as a thriller. it needed an edge of suspense. this film had none. Or maybe a sense of humor. the plot is so outlandish as it is, a line of tongue in cheek humor would have been welcome. it's not played for scares or laughs but comes across as a rather lame social drama until it becomes another shoot em up.

As for plot holes... first of all, I don't usually spot many plot holes in movies. I watch a lot of films and if I'm enjoying it I usually get sucked into the story. Plot holes are in a lot of movies and I always miss them. But here they stuck out like a sore thumb.

1. 2.8 million aliens living at the encampment? I don't think so. Are we expected to believe humans set up this camp to house the population of Chicago? There was no reason for the number to be this high. we see maybe 30 aliens in the entire movie. WHy not just make the number 100,000. that's fair.

So we have 2.8 million aliens. how do we go about moving them 50 miles away? Let's take a few dozen convoys with...50 people(?) going door to door to GET SIGNATURES BY ALIENS ALLOWING THEM TO BE MOVED. yes, this will certainly move 2.8 million aliens. and certainly the aliens know to give signatures. Ridiculous

2. Guy gets sprayed with black goo. He turns into an alien. Interesting...I wonder what the alien was going to use that for. Oh, it's his rocket fuel? Why that is awfully convenient. At least they didn't even try to explain this. It was cheap plot point and nothing more.

3. Breaking back into the science lab and out was far too easy.

4. Our main guy steals a phone from someone. hey, his wife is calling! wonder how she got the number?

5. Here's my favorite. Main guy gets in a hissy fit. So he takes a 2x4 and smacks the alien on the face, knocking him out. The man somehow is able to steal the space ship and fly up the air until it crashes. Why do characters in movies do this? I see it all the time. What the fuck was he trying to achieve?! Ugh that bugged me.

the ending didn't bother me, though the sight of the alien making a flower out of trash was ham handed. maybe all the aliens were really humans who got sprayed with black goo and turned into aliens. could be a good twist for the sequel.
again, i liked the movie. it was worth seeing. I'd give it 3 stars if i were a film critic. I was hopping it would have been more than a B grade action movie

ivankay

08-25-2009, 06:41 PM

i was going to post the other Inglorious Basterds poster i saw in Paris, but figured why not go to excess and put up a bunch of movie related stuff i had the urge to take pictures of?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3857736576_2c0c8bbc1f.jpg
Theater in Paris near the Catacombs.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3506/3856947113_d485fcb3eb.jpg
Bruno poster in the Paris Metro.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3564/3857737982_96fee37ac7.jpg
Darth Vader McDonalds' ad in Paris. Love the people making out in the back.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2496/3857738594_52387fddff.jpg
Paris Metro again. i really liked a lot of the advertising in the tubes.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3528/3857739598_f68ec16ced.jpg
Billboard for La-Haut inside the Disney Studio Park (which pretty much sucked).

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2599/3857740122_92e69efa63.jpg
Lots of Disney movie stuff there (duh, it's their theme...just not enough and some cruddy attractions with few good ones).

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2598/3856950155_7f970cf28f.jpg
It's everywhere.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2501/3857741118_29abcb8937.jpg
One of the cruddy attractions. This is next to an Aerosmith Rockin' Coaster (not bad) which almost made this Bruckheimer Land.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3570/3857742054_31048707b8.jpg
Gotta pay respect to The Umbrellas of Cherbourg.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2487/3856951885_0eb10b320b.jpg
Outside CinéMagique. The movie they show has Martin Short and Julie Delpy starring and it is pretty good.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2585/3857742884_d660bc94f9.jpg
The theater for above.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2619/3856952847_e87171758d.jpg
Inside Animagique.

my internetz is being slow. i'll finish this later.

whynotsmile99

08-25-2009, 06:43 PM

*SPOILER-ish*

It was cool alright, but the smokey projection face laughing was silly, and I had a couple of other things bugging me plotwise by then, so I wasn't totally into it. The Basterds, for instance, don't appear to notice the cinema is burning down around them, which makes all their extra shooting and blowing up just pointless. And it seemed odd to me that Shoshana would expect Marcel to burn himself to death.

Few other bits and pieces that got on my nerves, not because they affected the movie or the plot in any way, just because they were kind of sloppy.

SPOILERSSSSS
i didn't think the basterds shooting the nazis in the burning theater was strange. there should have been a shot of them noticing the fire, but they had open shots and went to town. plus, if we are thinking realistically, there should have been dozens of nazi guards surrounding the theater. the fire burned the screen and most likely would have killed many people, but any outside guards would have been able to bust down the doors

nbvcide

08-26-2009, 02:40 AM

a screener of this has hit the scene if anyone doesn't want to wait until October or November to maybe see it in the three theaters it'll play in...

i think i'm gonna watch this tomorrow.. and maybe Jeanne Dielman (1975)

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/2466/antichristalltextukpost.jpg

ivankay

08-26-2009, 03:46 AM

More stuff:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2515/3856953369_a3fcc9c738.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3430/3857744430_aa5c525351.jpg
From a store in Amsterdam.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2473/3857745262_b27077f1aa.jpg
A movie theater lobby in Berlin.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2574/3856954317_b6474a8c43.jpg
Same as above.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3097/3856955235_d37a0fd7eb.jpg
Huge ass ad in Berlin using Gary Cooper from High Noon.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2588/3856955779_76e6cb4d85.jpg
While walking through the maze of Venice, stumbled onto a film festival.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2585/3857746730_79a29bb92c.jpg
The selection for the night.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2557/3856957085_baf651ea77.jpg
Where it would be screening. i would have gone, but to do so would have made me miss my ride back to the hotel. Peeked my head in later for a sec to see and hear the Italian dubbing.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3480/3857748526_7c0de4ba82.jpg
The Darth Vader graffiti was along a number of walls along a whole walkway (still Venice).

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2603/3856958825_7231cb33c1.jpg
Pathe Theater in Paris.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3532/3856959361_4d0c216d00_b.jpg
The other IG poster(s).

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2617/3856959893_986433fbce.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2571/3856960445_2290698c01.jpg
A strange looking poster....

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2514/3856961079_7f85b3ff11.jpg
...that someone added toilet paper decoration to.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2439/3857751786_28cb03c3ed.jpg
Almost saw IG or Excalibur here.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2639/3856962043_dccf3e49c5.jpg
Saw it here instead. They politely asked me to stop taking pictures after i took this one.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2459/3857752946_f2f7c19511.jpg
The outside.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3421/3857753470_02ca629879.jpg
Another Harry Potter poster in the Paris Metro.

That was movie stuff from my recent European journey.

SoulDischarge

08-26-2009, 08:29 AM

I think where all of you are getting hung up on Inglourious Basterds is that you think the plot matters worth a damn.

AlecEiffel

08-26-2009, 12:43 PM

5. Here's my favorite. Main guy gets in a hissy fit. So he takes a 2x4 and smacks the alien on the face, knocking him out. The man somehow is able to steal the space ship and fly up the air until it crashes. Why do characters in movies do this? I see it all the time. What the fuck was he trying to achieve?! Ugh that bugged me.

When have you seen that in a movie before?

mountmccabe

08-26-2009, 01:18 PM

spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers....

the problem with the aliens being humanized was that they were too literally human beings. The analogies to apartheid were so hit over the head there was really no point in making them aliens at all. I realize the aliens have been here for 20 years when the movie beings after the intro, but they were esentially human characters. These aliens were a step up from Men in Black. They were boring. They were poorly written human characters in a alien costume. They traded with evil Nigerians, they banged hookers, they ran from the cops, they have conversations with humans. Did I feel bad for them? Not really. They really didn't do shit or say anything remotely interesting. There was no alien to care about. that main alien, Charles Johnson or something was weak. he wasn't given any personality. was he good? evil? Conflicted? Who knows. he wanted his juice to get off the planet. oh and he has a little alien baby with big doe eyes. AWWWWW

the movie would have worked well as a thriller. it needed an edge of suspense. this film had none. Or maybe a sense of humor. the plot is so outlandish as it is, a line of tongue in cheek humor would have been welcome. it's not played for scares or laughs but comes across as a rather lame social drama until it becomes another shoot em up.

There are some good points here - I certainly would've preferred more time with the aliens so they were stronger characters and we got some sense of their alienness - but I definitely thought the film had a sense of humor. I laughed quite a bit. It was a situational humor, not one liners and jokes.

Also I liked the social drama aspects of it.

1. 2.8 million aliens living at the encampment? I don't think so. Are we expected to believe humans set up this camp to house the population of Chicago? There was no reason for the number to be this high. we see maybe 30 aliens in the entire movie. WHy not just make the number 100,000. that's fair.

So we have 2.8 million aliens. how do we go about moving them 50 miles away? Let's take a few dozen convoys with...50 people(?) going door to door to GET SIGNATURES BY ALIENS ALLOWING THEM TO BE MOVED. yes, this will certainly move 2.8 million aliens. and certainly the aliens know to give signatures. Ridiculous

You're remembering the number wrong. There were 1.8 million at the time of the movie. That's still rather high but I don't think it is 18 (or whatever) times too high. That was a big fucking ship.

Also we saw way more than 30 aliens; we just didn't get to meet them all.

Also of course MNU trying to get signatures from the aliens was ridiculous! It was hilarious, too.

2. Guy gets sprayed with black goo. He turns into an alien. Interesting...I wonder what the alien was going to use that for. Oh, it's his rocket fuel? Why that is awfully convenient. At least they didn't even try to explain this. It was cheap plot point and nothing more.

OK, that was a little contrived.

3. Breaking back into the science lab and out was far too easy.

In I will grant you.

Out is a different story, though.

4. Our main guy steals a phone from someone. hey, his wife is calling! wonder how she got the number?

She called him a day or so after he had already called her.

5. Here's my favorite. Main guy gets in a hissy fit. So he takes a 2x4 and smacks the alien on the face, knocking him out. The man somehow is able to steal the space ship and fly up the air until it crashes. Why do characters in movies do this? I see it all the time. What the fuck was he trying to achieve?! Ugh that bugged me.

This may not have been clear somehow but Wikus was both a moron and a slimeball. He didn't want to turn into an alien and Christopher said that using the medical machines on the ship to "fix" Wikus wasn't a priority. So his options were sit and wait for three years, try and argue with Christopher more or try to and make it work himself.

He was trying to achieve remaining human.

the ending didn't bother me, though the sight of the alien making a flower out of trash was ham handed.

Do you think just showing an alien would've been enough to communicate that it was Wikus?

maybe all the aliens were really humans who got sprayed with black goo and turned into aliens. could be a good twist for the sequel.

How would that even be possible? I would hate them overturning the entire world they created to shoehorn that in.

Fuck. I'd much rather just have Christopher return, have a little bit of trouble picking up the others and then a bunch of other alien ships arrive and start destroying human cities.

amyzzz

08-26-2009, 01:22 PM

I like all of whynotsmile's points. And I feel like a jerk for not knowing your name, whynotsmile. :)

SoulDischarge

08-26-2009, 01:39 PM

I watched Margot At The Wedding, and I have to say the perfect word to describe my feelings toward Noah Baumbach is ambivalent. I kind of hate his movies. They come off as too clever for their own good a lot of times. Most of the characters interactions and dialogue comes off as hyper-literate abstractions of what people are supposed to be like as opposed to what they actually are like. It's possible this non-realistic realism is a stylistic choice, but I don't think it really works. Still, I can't totally dismiss him. It seems like a lot of what he's trying to express comes from a sincere place, but he just doesn't know how to translate into believability. I'll probably keep seeing his movies when they come to DVD and I'll probably keep getting frustrated by them. As far as dysfunctional family comedy-dramas centered around weddings are concerned, I'll take Rachel Getting Married a hundred times over.

schoolofruckus

08-26-2009, 02:24 PM

bobert

08-26-2009, 02:34 PM

I watched Margot At The Wedding, and I have to say the perfect word to describe my feelings toward Noah Baumbach is ambivalent. I kind of hate his movies.

Yeah, you certainly sound conflicted.

faxman75

08-26-2009, 02:39 PM

bobert will get you with that ambivalent word every time Patrick. Watch out. He ranted for a whole a paragraph about it yesterday.

mountmccabe

08-26-2009, 02:42 PM

again, i liked the movie. it was worth seeing. I'd give it 3 stars if i were a film critic. I was hopping it would have been more than a B grade action movie

I should probably close in kind and note that our different responses weren't due to our perception of the points you brought up in the flaws; it is more that our preception of those "flaws" were due to our responses. District 9 was a delight. I enjoyed the hell out of it so I was/have been more generous to it.

It wasn't perfect but it had a lot that was very good about it and that made me happy.

M Sparks

08-26-2009, 02:45 PM

Yeah, you certainly sound conflicted.

:lool

bobert

08-26-2009, 02:50 PM

bobert will get you with that ambivalent word every time Patrick. Watch out. He ranted for a whole a paragraph about it yesterday.

Just trying to raise awareness, Fax. Get the word out. Thanks for your help.

wmgaretjax

08-26-2009, 03:00 PM

Most of the characters interactions and dialogue comes off as hyper-literate abstractions of what people are supposed to be like as opposed to what they actually are like. It's possible this non-realistic realism is a stylistic choice, but I don't think it really works.

I think it's definitely a stylistic choice... Particularly given his background and that most of his key characters are pseudo-intellectuals. I really enjoy all of his films, but this technique definitely rings false at points.

SoulDischarge

08-26-2009, 03:55 PM

This is an exceptionally well-worded point. While hate (or "kind of hate") is a bit too strong, I felt almost exactly the same towards The Squid and the Whale. But I haven't seen Margot or Kicking and Screaming or anything else he's made without Wes Anderson.

Yeah, poor choice of words on my behalf. I think hate was a stronger word than I should have used, it just kind of rambled out. I meant more that I was supremely annoyed. And this is just based off The Squid & The Whale and Margot At The Wedding

Yeah, you certainly sound conflicted.

Way to read the rest of the paragraph, jackass. There are parts of his films that really bother me and other parts that I find intriguing. I know what "ambivalent" means, and even if I didn't, the internet is full of dictionaries. Go harass someone who warrants it.

amyzzz

08-26-2009, 04:00 PM

Which part was intriguing? The sincerity?

SoulDischarge

08-26-2009, 04:02 PM

Shut the fuck up Amy.

amyzzz

08-26-2009, 04:04 PM

Then I agree you shouldn't have used the word "ambivalent."

SoulDischarge

08-26-2009, 04:06 PM

I know how I feel about the goddamn movies and I feel fucking ambivalent. Go to hell, the lot of you.

amyzzz

08-26-2009, 04:08 PM

:cat

bobert

08-26-2009, 04:09 PM

Oh boy, look what I've started. This isn't good for anyone. My apologies everyone.

schoolofruckus

08-26-2009, 05:54 PM

Bobert, what is your acceptable definition of ambivalence? To me, it means having alternating, conflicting strong feelings towards something, and thus I think Patrick used it correctly.

bobert

08-26-2009, 06:39 PM

He did use it correctly. He also put it in italics in what I assumed was a reference to my original post about the word, that's the only reason I said anything. I wasn't trying to imply he didn't know what he meant. Anyone who uses "hyper-literate abstractions" and "non-realistic realism" in the same sentence needs lessons on how to dumb-down their vocabulary, not the other way around.

SoulDischarge

08-26-2009, 07:08 PM

Discussing Noah Baumbach necessitates phrases like "hyper-literate abstractions." Dude makes jokes about the misappropriation of the word "Kafkaesque" in his movies.

bobert

08-26-2009, 07:13 PM

I won't disagree with that.

AlecEiffel

08-27-2009, 12:11 PM

I know it's been said countless times before, but my god the IMDB message boards are a cesspool of stupidity.

RotationSlimWang

08-27-2009, 05:08 PM

You can't really be ambivalent about something that already happened. Not trying to shit in your cereal, Patrick, but although the literal definition can sorta be manipulated to apply to your feelings about a movie you saw it doesn't really work. Ambivalence has to take place prior to an event, or more specifically prior to making a decision.

SoulDischarge

08-27-2009, 05:14 PM

I'm not bothering. I felt conflicted, ok?

schoolofruckus

08-27-2009, 06:30 PM

I saw Andrew Bujalski's Beeswax last night, and was thoroughly unimpressed. I was a big fan of Mutual Appreciation, but this film is a lot more similar to Funny Ha Ha in that the characters just aren't that interesting. At least in Funny Ha Ha the interaction itself was somewhat unique and stimulating; Beeswax, on the other hand, is largely a drag. It's occasionally amusing and sweet in its way, and there's little to no complaints about the acting in terms of authenticity, but there's just so little to care about. I have read that the two lead characters are twin sisters in life as well as onscreen, and it seems to me that Bujalski probably found something extremely endearing and fascinating in their chemistry. But I swear to God, it did not translate; I actually found the wheelchair-bound heroine to be kind of a shrew, to the point that I was actually siding with the estranged business partner who serves as the film's version of an antagonist. Also, I realized during this film that - outside of the tasteful monochrome in Mutual Appreciation - I don't really think much of Bujalski as a visual artist. I typed the phrase "sitcom coverage" at one point during this review, and while that's going a bit far, it's closer to the truth than not. Plenty of naturalistic, actor-centric directors from John Cassavetes to Aaron Katz have made a career out of being strong (if deceptively simple) visual storytellers, and I'm thinking Bujalski just doesn't have this in him.

atom heart

08-27-2009, 09:57 PM

Inglourious Basterds had a damn fine villian. What a weird, nihilist creep.

Castanets

08-27-2009, 10:28 PM

I saw Jean-Marc Vallee's C.R.A.Z.Y. this past weekend. French Canadian film. I thought it was an excellent coming-of-age story about a young man growing up in the 70s and not fitting in with the rest of his family. It's also a rather beautifully played love story between father and son (not in a creepy way) who both share a deep love of music. In fact, this film must have spent a small fortune on the music rights: Bowie, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Patsy Cline and others. But unlike a like a film abortion like Garden State, the use of music is clever, but never forced. It's also got beautiful period detail that manages to look near perfect but never feel overly stylized. Probably not a great film, but very entertaining, energetic and heartfelt.

sCvQ2OpCj8A

wmgaretjax

08-27-2009, 10:34 PM

I really enjoyed C.R.A.Z.Y. as well... saw it at SIFF when it came out. Really tender film.

It reminded me of a more mainstream version of my favorite french-canadian film Leolo. I'm not really sure why, it's a radically different film... but something about it struck me as familiar.

SoulDischarge

08-27-2009, 10:36 PM

Leolo was odd but charming. I really liked the whole bit about the scared brother who beefed up.

wmgaretjax

08-27-2009, 10:38 PM

Leolo was odd but charming. I really liked the whole bit about the scared brother who beefed up.

yeah. i also love the mom's obsession with shitting.

SoulDischarge

08-27-2009, 10:40 PM

Those types of movies are always obsessed with bodily functions it seems like. 95% bittersweet slice of life fantasy 5% digestion.

Castanets

08-27-2009, 10:43 PM

sbessiso

08-28-2009, 05:11 AM

So listen. I KNOW these movies are dumb, stupid and outrageously silly. But the Final Destination series just scares me so much. Like just the commercials on TV are enough to make me really tense. I always get really tense when a new one of these come out. It's just, all the gore and violent deaths really get to me no matter how dumb they look. Anyone see that one commercial that has the girl getting trapped in her car during a car wash as her head inches closer and closer to the spinner dryer thing? Or how about the one where you see the girl getting sucked into the escalator? *shivers*

It's the same with the SAW series. These arent good movies but they just amp up the violence and gore to such an extreme level. And I have a feeling this new FD is going to be the grisliest of them all considering we're still in the SAW age.

Just had to get this off my chest

M Sparks

08-28-2009, 10:02 AM

Final Destination series are a guilty pleasure for me. It's a good premise for a series because you can have a whole new cast every time and still have continuity. They don't have to keep bringing the survivor or main character back over and over. And there's none of that "Really, the killer is still alive after all that?" factor. Also, you can get as creative as you want with the death scenes. Like, with the Saw movies, you're thinking "Why does he keep building crazy new machines? Why not stick with the ones that work best? Isn't it risky to always be trying something new?"

schoolofruckus

08-28-2009, 10:08 AM

Memo to all:

Please don't refer to any era of my lifetime as "the SAW age".

SoulDischarge

08-28-2009, 10:13 AM

Would you prefer "the Rock Of Love era"?

schoolofruckus

08-28-2009, 10:36 AM

Touche.

liquidsnake28

08-28-2009, 10:39 AM

amyzzz

08-28-2009, 12:08 PM

I liked the first FD because of Devon Sawa. :cat Never watched any of the others.

humanoid

08-28-2009, 02:41 PM

Memo to all:

Please don't refer to any era of my lifetime as "the SAW age".

Would you prefer "the Rock Of Love era"?

now if someone were to combine these two ridiculous entities, I may become interested

M Sparks

08-28-2009, 02:45 PM

They still have continuity? Really? I've never seen any of these movies and I don't plan to but by the way you described them it doesn't sound like there's any continuity at all.

There's conceptual continuity. The concept is exactly the same for each movie, but the story always starts over with a different group of characters. You don't have the stock horror movie scene where the survivor says "IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN!". You don't have the disbelief that comes with the killer never getting caught or killed. There's also an internal logic that they stick to. Once you accept the ridiculous premise, it always makes sense.

By comparison, in the Friday the 13th series, first Jason wasn't even the killer, then he was just a psycho, then he had supernatural powers, then he's a spirit of some kind, then he's in space somehow, then he's living in ANOTHER MOVIE'S logical universe...etc.

In the Final Destination series, the premise allows them to continue into infinity, as long as they can find writers to come up with crazy scenarios.
Each movie is self contained. You could pretty much watch them in any order. (In fact, I've only seen 1 and 3.)

I question why they've chosen the "add or remove an article" sequel naming convention. (The new movie is "THE Final Destination.") If I owned the rights to those, I would have named them all "Final Destination: cheesy title related to the event that drives the action" . For example "Final Destination: Race with Death".

It's trash, but it's well-conceived trash.

EDIT: Apparently, there are also books, all of which are faithful to the concept, but are not based on the individual movies. It looks like the books follow my name idea...one is called "Final Destination: End Of The Line", which takes place in a subway. Movie executives are dumber than publishers.

EDIT AGAIN: I'm wrong, the second movie apparently had a survivor from the first one. I didn't see that one, and they stopped doing that.

Drinkey McDrinkerstein

08-28-2009, 02:46 PM

i thought the first FD was fun (i was in hgihs chool at the time), but I honestly can't recall if I have seen either of the sequals. i'm thinking of seeing the new one only because it's in 3D though and i'm sure it will be fucking ntus to see it that way

Drinkey McDrinkerstein

08-28-2009, 02:51 PM

I question why they've chosen the "add or remove an article" sequel naming convention. (The new movie is "THE Final Destination.") If I owned the rights to those, I would have named them all "Final Destination: cheesy title related to the event that drives the action" . For example "Final Destination: Race with Death".

It's trash, but it's well-conceived trash.

it is an odd phenomenon.. see the fast & furious series for another examples of bizarre naming conventions

1.the fast and the furious
2. 2 fast 2 furious
3. the fast and the furious: tokyo drift
4. fast & furious

Or the Rambo series, which makes very little sense whatsoever

1. first blood
2. rambo: first blood part 2
3. rambo 3
4. rambo
5. rambo 5 (apparently this was announced recently and this is the working title)

JewFace

08-29-2009, 06:14 AM

Interesting Huffington Post analysis of Tarantino's use of and attitude toward violence in film by Johann Hari. I think he makes some fair points, but I think he may be going a bit far with a term like "moral emptiness".

The tragedy of Tarantino is that he could have been more than the Schlock and Awe merchant he has devolved into. If he had stopped mistaking his DVD collection for a life, he could've been a contender.

Complete Article:
The Terrible Moral Emptiness of Quentin Tarantino Is Wrecking His Films (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-terrible-moral-emptin_b_270809.html)

liquidsnake28

08-29-2009, 12:56 PM

The worst is when a sequel has absolutely nothing to do with any of the other movies like Halloween 3.

wmgaretjax

08-29-2009, 03:27 PM

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z26/wmgaretjax/photojpgscaled500.jpg

RED 3-D rig for a friend's film...

PassiveTheory

08-29-2009, 04:07 PM

I know most people who like this thread are adults who really couldn't give a shit about animated movies.

For those who do and who don't feel like risking their credibility on the board, I give you my short, most likely misleading review of Ponyo.

If you're familiar with Miyazaki's previous work... You're going to need to check your prior notions at the door because this, more so than any other film he's done, is a movie made specifically to entertain children, not you.

So the plot's fairly weak, but I will say that the art in this film is far greater than in any previous Miyazaki film. Some of my favorite small moments while watching the film were because of the excruciating amount of detail and minutia within each scene (especially the one with the octopus entering the house, so adorable for some strange reason). The storm scenes are fabulous, and the amount of expression and detail literally painted (with watercolors, I may add) onto each character's face does more to express and emote than does any of the dubbing.

Speaking of which, that's the movies second main flaw: the dubbing. The celebrity voice actor who manages to portray his character the best is, no surprise here, Liam Neeson who portrays Ponyo's magic casting, human-despising yet not-all-too-evil father. Since the two main characters of the film are children, they're played by nepotism beneficiaries Noah Cyrus and Frankie Jonas who voice Ponyo and Sosuke (the film's other main character) respectively. If you don't like the sound of American children talking, you will seriously NOT like this movie. And on the other end of the spectrum, Cloris Leachman, Betty White and Lily Tomlin get sadly small speaking roles as batty old senior citizens who are the responsibility of Sosuke's mother Tomoko (voiced by Tina Fey who, at times, almost phones it in given the robotic quality of her lines, although I'd place some blame on the translators/writers for that).

************* SPOILERS AT THIS POINT ALERT *************

Lastly, the plot is, at times, kinda disturbingly suggestive (the movie, more or less, establishes that in order for a girl [Ponyo] to be happy [no longer be a free-spirited magic casting fish but instead be a real girl] she must give up her freedom/creativity/liveliness/uniqueness [give up being magical] and be in love with a boy... a five year old boy, at that) and there are a number of plot holes (i.e. how did Ponyo's father become a magical ocean gatekeeper person? What was Ponyo's mother talking to Sosuke's mother about?) and a rather unfulfilling climax that just rubbed me as rushed, but it's a decently fun movie.

When it comes to Ponyo, take a child or a kid brother or sister or cousin with you and see it for the art. You'll be making their day.

GRADE: B

RotationSlimWang

08-29-2009, 04:57 PM

Interesting Huffington Post analysis of Tarantino's use of and attitude toward violence in film by Johann Hari. I think he makes some fair points, but I think he may be going a bit far with a term like "moral emptiness".

Complete Article:
The Terrible Moral Emptiness of Quentin Tarantino Is Wrecking His Films (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-terrible-moral-emptin_b_270809.html)

Jesus, why is it that the blogs that really, really need a comments section don't have one? This is so stupid in a dozen ways, I'm not even sure where to begin. Except that the dumb fuck should at least run his pieces through some basic fact checking when pretending to write knowledgeably about the rise of a filmmaker he clearly doesn't know that much about. Reservoir Dogs was 92, not 94. Pulp was 94. Little prick.

iv3rdawG

08-29-2009, 05:58 PM

It looks like he does have a comments page, actually. With like dozens of pages already.

48a6ZS7jJQ0

M Sparks

08-29-2009, 09:22 PM

1. first blood
2. rambo: first blood part 2
3. rambo 3
4. rambo
5. rambo 5 (apparently this was announced recently and this is the working title)

This has bothered me since Rambo "3". Nice to see they are keeping up the bullshit 20+ years later.

M Sparks

08-29-2009, 09:23 PM

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z26/wmgaretjax/photojpgscaled500.jpg

RED 3-D rig for a friend's film...

drool...

M Sparks

08-29-2009, 09:32 PM

The worst is when a sequel has absolutely nothing to do with any of the other movies like Halloween 3.

Remember the Friday The 13th TV series? It was actually more interesting than the movies, but I always thought it was so sleazy that they just called it that for no reason other than Paramount owned the name.

As long as we're talking about trash movie sequels...another one of my favorite series is Ginger Snaps, because they somehow managed to make 3 completely different movies about the same characters/situations. The third one is kind of dull, but I still admire it for trying something different.

MissingPerson

08-29-2009, 09:36 PM

Hearty agreement on Ginger Snaps. Noble failings, and the ending to Unleashed was great.

wmgaretjax

08-29-2009, 09:56 PM

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/inception/trailer

SoulDischarge

08-30-2009, 03:31 AM

Oh yeah. That trailer was on before Inglourious Basterds. Pretty cool, but cool trailers mean nothing to me in terms of getting excited for a movie. Fuckers get paid ridiculous amounts of money to make the shittiest films look amazing. Still, the music on that trailer was awesome in the theater.

sbessiso

08-30-2009, 06:47 AM

No way, i'm totally excited. Theres too much going for it, the cast, the director, the premise. I'm there!

I saw "Equilibrium" last night. It was a worthy entry in the sci-fi genre even though a lot of the style was jacked from the matrix. I enjoyed the premise and Christian Bale is really good at being a badass.

Mr.Nipples

08-30-2009, 12:03 PM

AlecEiffel

08-30-2009, 01:55 PM

Are you just now discovering American Movie?

M Sparks

08-30-2009, 04:05 PM

If you're familiar with Miyazaki's previous work...

I'm willing to bet I am the only person on this board that has held a My Neighbor Totoro themed party. And yet, I don't know jack about Miyazaki. It just seemed like a fun idea at the time.

Drinkey McDrinkerstein

08-30-2009, 05:26 PM

Are you just now discovering American Movie?

man, i watched American Movie for the first time about 5 years ago, and LOVED IT...laughed, quoted the guys nonstop with my girlfriend...and then by pure coincidence saw Storytelling only 2 weeks later, and the very thought of American Movie instantly became depressing

PassiveTheory

08-30-2009, 06:15 PM

I'm willing to bet I am the only person on this board that has held a My Neighbor Totoro themed party. And yet, I don't know jack about Miyazaki. It just seemed like a fun idea at the time.

Hahah, that sounds awesome.

kreutz2112

08-30-2009, 09:21 PM

Mrfqn7QsILE

paulb

08-30-2009, 11:12 PM

ok, i just watched Antichrist.....what the fuck...i think im about to puke.....someone explain it once they are at the woods.

wmgaretjax

08-30-2009, 11:17 PM

that last post makes me incredibly happy.

schoolofruckus

08-30-2009, 11:20 PM

ok, i just watched Antichrist.....what the fuck...i think im about to puke.....someone explain it once they are at the woods.

Where did you see it?

Also, by all means talk about it but NO FUCKING SPOILERS. Shit doesn't even come out in the US for another 8 weeks.

paulb

08-30-2009, 11:22 PM

you mean, its actually going to be played in america? I thought it was like one of those european only movies or something.....disturbing as fuck.

SoulDischarge

08-31-2009, 12:00 AM

I think Antichrist is the first movie I've been uncontrollably excited to see in at least a year.

wmgaretjax

08-31-2009, 12:12 AM

for me it's that and Enter the Void... but that's probably not coming til early next year...

JewFace

08-31-2009, 02:23 AM

I'm not that familiar with Von Trier's work. I've seen Dancer in the Dark, Breaking the Waves, Dogville and Manderlay and that's it. I loved Dancer in the Dark , Breaking the Wave and Dogville. Manderlay wasn't so successful. Any recommendations for other Von Trier films?

I am also very excited to see Antichrist. I love the director's notes that Von Trier posted on the official website:

DIRECTOR’S CONFESSION
May 18, 2009 by Zentropa
Two years ago, I suffered from depression. It was a new experience for me. Everything, no matter what, seemed unimportant, trivial. I couldn’t work.
Six months later, just as an exercise, I wrote a script. It was a kind of therapy, but also a search, a test to see if I would ever make another film.
The script was finished and filmed without much enthusiasm, made as it was using about half of my physical and intellectual capacity.

The work on the script did not follow my usual modus operandi. Scenes were added for no reason. Images were composed free of logic or dramatic thinking. They often came from dreams I was having at the time, or dreams I’d had earlier in my life.

Once again, the subject was ”Nature,” but in a different and more direct way than before. In a more personal way.

The film does not contain any specific moral code and only has what some might call ‘the bare necessities’ in the way of a plot.
I read Strindberg when I was young. I read with enthusiasm the things he wrote before he went to Paris to become an alchemist and during his stay there … the period later called his “inferno crisis” – was “Antichrist” my Inferno Crisis? My affinity with Strindberg?

In any case, I can offer no excuse for ”Antichrist”. Other than my absolute belief in the film - the most important film of my entire career!
Lars von Trier, Copenhagen, 25/03/09.

wmgaretjax

08-31-2009, 08:57 AM

See Element of a Crime next.

M Sparks

08-31-2009, 09:32 AM

Hahah, that sounds awesome.

When Disney released Totoro here in 93-ish, they really pushed it even though no one seemed to know what it was. (Especially in a small town). I was a manager for Wherehouse, and Disney set us a box of stuffed Totoros to give out with each VHS purchase. After a few weeks when we had sold exactly zero, I liberated the box, invited people over to get drunk and watch the movie, and I gave each guest a Totoro.

I had the last one up until a couple of years ago...sold it on e-bay for $10.

nbvcide

08-31-2009, 01:58 PM

Where did you see it?

Also, by all means talk about it but NO FUCKING SPOILERS. Shit doesn't even come out in the US for another 8 weeks.

Antichrist?? shit... i know people ignore my posts but come on...

i posted a few pages back that it's been leaked all over the internet... dvd screener copy...

wmgaretjax

08-31-2009, 02:27 PM

there it is! nice. i know what i'm doing tonight (aside from 200 pages of reading for law school).

MissingPerson

08-31-2009, 02:28 PM

malcolmjamalawesome

08-31-2009, 02:38 PM

there it is! nice. i know what i'm doing tonight (aside from 200 pages of reading for law school).

I'm in law school, too. Got a link for that to pm me? Thaaaaaanks.

schoolofruckus

08-31-2009, 02:54 PM

Son of a BITCH!

Haneke is doing a Q&A after a screening of The White Ribbon on Wednesday night.....and it also happens to be the only night I have NIN tickets.

TommyboyUNM

08-31-2009, 02:55 PM

Except that the dumb fuck should at least run his pieces through some basic fact checking when pretending to write knowledgeably about the rise of a filmmaker he clearly doesn't know that much about. Reservoir Dogs was 92, not 94. Pulp was 94. Little prick.

Also, he says that Mr. Blonde tortured the cop to get him to give up who the undercover was. Mr. Blonde didn't care who the undercover was and told the cop he was torturing him because it was fun.

SoulDischarge

08-31-2009, 03:40 PM

For no reason I've ever been able to determine, I hugely enjoyed The Kingdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingdom_(TV_miniseries)

Yeah. I fucking love Von Trier's Kingdom.

amyzzz

08-31-2009, 03:43 PM

I'm a bit scared to see Antichrist. Depressing movies tend to throw me into a full blown depression for a couple weeks. I'm damned curious though. (also, I forgot Von Trier did The Kingdom -- I loved that)

sonofhal

08-31-2009, 03:44 PM

http://www.kirkdemarais.com/printillustration.htm

Like this.

reedk

08-31-2009, 05:24 PM

The fast and the furious series was awesome keeping you on your toes with each sequel.
Foreign martial arts and acton ones are awesome too (Tony Leung, takeshi Kaneshiro, Zhang Ziyi, etc, etc.) These have drama, good story lines and suspense and twists at the end too.

mma fanatic
http://www.hawaiiufc.com

M Sparks

08-31-2009, 06:10 PM

paulb

08-31-2009, 06:13 PM

shit... i know people ignore my posts but come on...

i posted a few pages back that it's been leaked all over the internet... dvd screener copy...

ya, i just downloaded the dvd screener... I saw someone in this thread post a photo of the poster, and it sounded intriguing and it is Willem Dafoe who is great. But i had no clue what the story was even about before watching it. Thanks to Eberts review i now get the symbolism, but still... trippy and most shocking things ive ever seen on film, although I dont have a tendency to see movies that are artsy.

wmgaretjax

08-31-2009, 07:05 PM

I'm in law school, too. Got a link for that to pm me? Thaaaaaanks.

piratebay

wmgaretjax

08-31-2009, 07:06 PM

Son of a BITCH!

Haneke is doing a Q&A after a screening of The White Ribbon on Wednesday night.....and it also happens to be the only night I have NIN tickets.

shit.

wmgaretjax

09-01-2009, 12:54 AM

antichrist was brutal. a monumental film. the better half didn't quite make it through (although she got fairly close).

we can talk more when it comes out i guess... it would be too easy to alter expectations for this film by talking about it. i would like to see it again in a proper setting anyhow... the quality is shite on the screener.

paulb

09-01-2009, 02:15 AM

Im seeing It Might Get Loud tomorrow night! im stoked!

Young blood

09-01-2009, 11:19 PM

9 looks fucking amazing and cant wait to see it. It will be a bigger cult classic than nightmare before christmas.

M Sparks

09-02-2009, 12:36 AM

I know they lhave nothing in common, but I'm really surprised the studio execs are allowing two movies called 9/Nine to come out within a few weeks of each other.

JewFace

09-02-2009, 01:30 AM

Son of a BITCH!
Haneke is doing a Q&A after a screening of The White Ribbon on Wednesday night.....and it also happens to be the only night I have NIN tickets.

Well if anyone else is around, I'd recommend checking it out. I saw it a couple of weeks ago at Sony. Beautifully made film. Haneke definitely knew what he was doing with the b&w.

AlecEiffel

09-02-2009, 10:38 AM

Paul W.S. Anderson is making (at least producing) a new adaptation of the Three Musketeers that will both be modernized and a period piece. This is going to be the worst. What a disappointment.

paulb

09-02-2009, 12:40 PM

It might get loud was fuckin awesome last night... Jimmy Page was clearly the leader of the film and really shined, while so did Jack White, really blew me away, The Edge really seemed to be the weakest link in the movie, since he has such a different style of guitar playing, while Jimmy and Jack have their blues roots were jammin lots....loved it though.

nbvcide

09-02-2009, 01:00 PM

is Halloween 2 the first remake of a sequel?

M Sparks

09-02-2009, 01:37 PM

is Halloween 2 the first remake of a sequel?

I doubt it, and from what I hear, it's not. That is, while the last one was half new stuff and half remake, this one takes off in a different direction.

I could be wrong. I also heard it sucked. Saw the last one on TV a few weeks ago and was surprised that it was kind of watchable.

Hmmm...now I want to find out if there are any other sequel remakes.

EDIT...Dawn Of The Dead. Can't believe I didn't think of that. That is DIRECTLY a remake of a sequel. The remake of first Dead film predates it by at least 10 years, and there is no crossover of writer/director/cast/style. Yet it is faithful to the source material of the original sequel.

When I googled "remake of a sequel", I found a reference to "Pistol Opera." I've never seen this, though I am familiar with the title...I think it was somewhere on my Netflix queue for ages before I quit. Anyway, this article claimed "Pistol Opera" is a remake of a sequel to "Branded To Kill". However, I can't find any reference to the existence of a sequel to "BTK"...except for a few that say "Pistol Opera" IS the sequel.

Drinkey McDrinkerstein

09-02-2009, 02:01 PM

is Halloween 2 the first remake of a sequel?

actually, it's not a remake of the orginal sequel at all, and no, this is not the first time a sequel to a remake has been done

I can think of the Ring 2 off the top of my head (which had nothing to do with ringu 2. then there's the Ocean's sequels, wherein the original film had no sequels (that i am aware of), hills have eyes remake also had a sequel, texas chainsaw massacre remake had its own prequel...

There are probably several examples of this that i can't even think of right now. You can definitely bet on multiple friday the 13th remake sequels though

M Sparks

09-02-2009, 02:26 PM

no, this is not the first time a sequel to a remake has been done

That's not what he asked. He asked about remakes of sequels.

I can think of the Ring 2 off the top of my head (which had nothing to do with ringu 2.

If it had nothing to do with it, then how could it be a remake?

there's the Ocean's sequels, wherein the original film had no sequels

Then they couldn't have remade something that didn't exist.

hills have eyes remake also had a sequel,

This could POTENTIALLY be a remake of a sequel...I didn't see the 80's "Hills Have Eyes Pt 2", nor the new one, so I don't know how related they are.

texas chainsaw massacre remake had its own prequel...

Now you're not even trying...

There are probably several examples of this that i can't even think of right now.

You haven't thought of any yet! ;) (Except MAYBE Hills Have Eyes.)

You can definitely bet on multiple friday the 13th remake sequels though

You can bet on remake sequels, but you can't bet on sequel remakes. If Jason "takes Manhattan" again, THAT'S a sequel remake.

Drinkey McDrinkerstein

09-02-2009, 02:35 PM

higgybaby23

09-02-2009, 03:42 PM

Rob Zombie needs to stop making films and get back to his crappy music career. His films aren't even enjoyable in a camp sort of way, they are just bad.

SoulDischarge

09-02-2009, 03:50 PM

When I googled "remake of a sequel", I found a reference to "Pistol Opera." I've never seen this, though I am familiar with the title...I think it was somewhere on my Netflix queue for ages before I quit. Anyway, this article claimed "Pistol Opera" is a remake of a sequel to "Branded To Kill". However, I can't find any reference to the existence of a sequel to "BTK"...except for a few that say "Pistol Opera" IS the sequel.

I have a ton of Seijun Suzuki films on DVD, including Branded To Kill and Pistol Opera, although I haven't seen the latter yet. My guess is that because it's by the same director, someone probably saw some parallels between that and Branded To Kill. So it's probably more of a stylistic sequel/remake/tribute than an actual official one. Maybe I'll watch it soon and let you know.

AlecEiffel

09-02-2009, 04:11 PM

What about sequels to sequels? Like how Army of Darkness is more like Evil Dead 2 Part 2 rather than Evil Dead 3.

amyzzz

09-02-2009, 04:12 PM

And how Evil Dead 2 is just a hilarious remake of Evil Dead?

humanoid

09-02-2009, 04:16 PM

Rob Zombie needs to stop making films and get back to his crappy music career. His films aren't even enjoyable in a camp sort of way, they are just bad.

I haven't seen his other movies, but did enjoy his take on Halloween. The horror genre doesn't usually appeal to me, but for some reason, I found that one entertaining.

Drinkey McDrinkerstein

09-02-2009, 04:21 PM

What about sequels to sequels? Like how Army of Darkness is more like Evil Dead 2 Part 2 rather than Evil Dead 3.

like the fifth Leprachaun movie In The Hood and the sixth Back 2 the Hood

AlecEiffel

09-02-2009, 04:39 PM

like the fifth Leprachaun movie In The Hood and the sixth Back 2 the Hood

yes, exactly like that.

liquidsnake28

09-02-2009, 06:01 PM

Saw the last one on TV a few weeks ago and was surprised that it was kind of watchable.

This isn't saying much but the new Halloween is actually better than his last.

I haven't seen his other movies, but did enjoy his take on Halloween. The horror genre doesn't usually appeal to me, but for some reason, I found that one entertaining.

Again, the new one is better so for you I definitely recommend seeing it. It tries to be more than just a slasher film and it fails at that. However, it's still a good slasher film so if you like those and you like his style as a director then it's surely worth seeing.

The Devil's Rejects is still easily his best though.

M Sparks

09-02-2009, 06:10 PM

i guess my main point was that this new Halloween is NOT a sequel remake, and i simply meant to give examples of similar situations. I was writing that at the same as you wrote your initial response and you beat me to the punch

I was just teasing anyway. Though, they ARE different things.

Halloween II (2009) is (supposedly) a sequel to a remake. Dawn Of The Dead (200?) is a remake of a sequel.

M Sparks

09-02-2009, 06:13 PM

I have a ton of Seijun Suzuki films on DVD, including Branded To Kill and Pistol Opera, although I haven't seen the latter yet. My guess is that because it's by the same director, someone probably saw some parallels between that and Branded To Kill. So it's probably more of a stylistic sequel/remake/tribute than an actual official one. Maybe I'll watch it soon and let you know.

IMDB lists them as Follows/Followed By partners. It was just one newspaper review that said it was a "remake OF a sequel". It may have been a misprint, or maybe they misunderstood some other articles I found that asked if it was "a remake OR a sequel."

M Sparks

09-02-2009, 06:34 PM

Rob Zombie needs to stop making films and get back to his crappy music career. His films aren't even enjoyable in a camp sort of way, they are just bad.

First of all, his music career IS enjoyable in a camp sort of way. I got to see him live in a small theatre and it was SO much fun.

As far his movies go, "House..." WAS pretty awful. But then, in the last 10 minutes or so, when it goes batshit insane, I thought it was pretty damn effective. The imagery was so bizarre and dreamlike, that it stuck with me and I had trouble getting to sleep. That's an effective horror movie, even if it took a while to get there. It went from being a bad Texas Chainsaw Massacre ripoff to a decent Argento ripoff.

"Halloween" took a classic, didn't ruin it, and added some subtext and backstory. I'd still rather watch the original, but as far as horror remakes go, it's gotta be near the top of the (admittedly weak) list.

"The Devil's Rejects" was just a fun, kick-ass revenge flick. I thought it was pretty great until the predictably slo-mo end.

Which begs the question, what IS a sequel? "The Devil's Rejects" has the same characters as "House...", but is a COMPLETELY different kind of movie. "...Rejects" appeals to action movie fans who would never watch a horror movie, and "House..." appeals to horror fans who might get bored with an action movie. And there's no need to see "House..." to enjoy "...Rejects"...in fact it might help if you didn't. So is it a sequel?

Sorry I keep getting serious about junk movies.

nbvcide

09-02-2009, 08:28 PM

I doubt it, and from what I hear, it's not. That is, while the last one was half new stuff and half remake, this one takes off in a different direction.

EDIT...Dawn Of The Dead. Can't believe I didn't think of that. That is DIRECTLY a remake of a sequel. The remake of first Dead film predates it by at least 10 years, and there is no crossover of writer/director/cast/style. Yet it is faithful to the source material of the original sequel.

no matter how different the remake is from the original it is still a remake, so Halloween 2 is still a remake.. (aren't MOST remakes vastly different from the original?)

and technically, technically Dawn of the Dead isn't a sequel (good one though, didn't think of that)... however, it doesn't follow the events of the original, or continue the story... i don't know what you'd call it though, a spinoff? Dawn of the Dead is less a sequel to Night of the Living Dead than Dogma is a sequel to Chasing Amy..

but i suppose, The Ring 2 and The Grudge 2 would qualify.. even if they too, stretch the definition of remake.. i didn't know there was an 80's Hills Have Eyes 2, if so, then yes that would qualify..

i wouldn't mind a remake of The Jerk, Too

That's not what he asked. He asked about remakes of sequels.

thank you :)

AlecEiffel

09-02-2009, 08:32 PM

Which begs the question, what IS a sequel? "The Devil's Rejects" has the same characters as "House...", but is a COMPLETELY different kind of movie. "...Rejects" appeals to action movie fans who would never watch a horror movie, and "House..." appeals to horror fans who might get bored with an action movie. And there's no need to see "House..." to enjoy "...Rejects"...in fact it might help if you didn't. So is it a sequel?

Yes. It is a continuation of the same story and characters.

I wouldn't say it's an action movie really, it's more of a revengesploitation movie. Most of the violence in that movie isn't action oriented at all. It's just cheap shocks. I think House was a better movie because there was at least some (not entirely derivative) creativity and an overall fun tone (effective or not, he was at least trying) there. Devil's rejects just has rednecks torturing people and is for the most part overly joyless. I like the idea of rednecks torturing people with monsters living in the oubliettes and catacombs under their house much more. I think he has so much more potential than he taps, I think House of 1000 Corpses was far from great (studio intervention did have a big hand in that, though) but it showed a lot of promise for what he could do that he chose not to develop further in favor of crap about gritty rednecks. I respect that he is doing pretty much exactly what he wants to, but I wish he would do what he is good at. I would love to see him do a big, crazy, cartoonishly gory monster movie using some of the visual flair he's shown in his art. I went through a haunted house he designed around Halloween at Universal Studios a few years before his first movie came out and it was awesome. There was one room that was full of clear body bags with really messed up corpses in them hanging from the ceiling that you had to push your way through while someone wearing gigantic, stylized knight armor, carrying a sword to match, was plowing through it scaring the crap out of people. That's the kind of movies he should be making.

liquidsnake28

09-02-2009, 08:42 PM

Halloween 2 is still a remake..

No, it's really not.

There was one room that was full of clear body bags with really messed up corpses in them hanging from the ceiling that you had to push your way through while someone wearing gigantic, stylized knight armor, carrying a sword to match, was plowing through it scaring the crap out of people.

Seriously, this has been done at every single haunted house I've ever been to in my life.

AlecEiffel

09-02-2009, 08:54 PM

Seriously, this has been done at every single haunted house I've ever been to in my life.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. If you really are being serious name me another haunted house with a 6'5 knight bashing around a room full of hanging corpses.

liquidsnake28

09-02-2009, 09:07 PM

I was being serious. Of course there isn't a fucking knight doing this in every single one but this gag is one of the most common staples of haunted houses, The Body Bag Room.

M Sparks

09-02-2009, 09:07 PM

no matter how different the remake is from the original it is still a remake, so Halloween 2 is still a remake.. (aren't MOST remakes vastly different from the original?)

No, not necessarily. I haven't seen it (and for that matter, I haven't seen the original Halloween 2 in ages) so I can't argue the point specifically.

Let's say that instead of "rebooting" Superman with whatever that thing was a few years back, they just remade Superman. They retell the story of him coming to earth, growing up, going to work at the newspaper, fighting Lex Luther, saving Lois, etc. They can change all the details, go for a different mood/style/whatever. But it has to have the same general story...otherwise, it's not a remake.

Now let's say it's a big hit, so they do "Superman 2:The Subtitling". If that movie does not AT LEAST involve General Zod in some way, it's NOT a remake of Superman 2. It's a sequel to a remake.

The whole "reboot" phenomenon makes things more confusing. "Star Trek" isn't really a remake of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture". But, when they do the next entry in the series, I can guarantee it will NOT be a sequel to "STII: Wrath Of Khan"

BTW...based on these descriptions, "The Hills Have Eyes 2" is NOT a remake of "The Hills Have Eyes Part 2".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hills_Have_Eyes_Part_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hills_Have_Eyes_2

I maintain that a remake OF a sequel remains exceedingly rare, and if you aren't going to count "Dawn Of The Dead" (your point is valid), then I can't think of one.

AlecEiffel

09-02-2009, 09:14 PM

I was being serious. Of course there isn't a fucking knight doing this in every single one but this gag is one of the most common staples of haunted houses, The Body Bag Room.

Oh yeah, ok true. The knight was what I was really trying to emphasize. It was an odd touch and I think a really fun addition to what is, as you said, a common staple.

M Sparks

09-02-2009, 09:19 PM

I was being serious. Of course there isn't a fucking knight doing this in every single one but this gag is one of the most common staples of haunted houses, The Body Bag Room.

I'm really disappointed that The Polka Dot Room has become so common. At the time I first saw one, it was the second best HH idea I'd ever seen.

The best one was this...you walk into a dimly lit room where nothing seems to be happening. A strobe flashes to your left, and you catch a glimpse of a long hallway. However, it's painted so it looks like an optical illusion...you assume it's NOT really a long hallway.

Flash...same thing.

Flash...you can see 2 figures standing at the end of the hallway, and they are tiny- it really is long.

Flash...the figures are closer, but still standing still. They're evil clowns.

Flash...closer still. They are just staring at you.

Flash...closer. Still motionless, still staring.

Flash...they are just a few feet away from you. They just stand there.

So...fucking...freaky. None of this jump-out-and-yell-boo bullshit. Nobody screams...they just press themselves into the corner, unable to move. They had to station someone in the room to come out and tell people calmly to where to go next. It was a haunted house they used to do every year in the basement of the honor dorm as a fundraiser...all the genius kids lived there and spent all year coming up with crazy shit.

AlecEiffel

09-02-2009, 09:20 PM

Let's say that instead of "rebooting" Superman with whatever that thing was a few years back, they just remade Superman. They retell the story of him coming to earth, growing up, going to work at the newspaper, fighting Lex Luther, saving Lois, etc. They can change all the details, go for a different mood/style/whatever. But it has to have the same general story...otherwise, it's not a remake.

I know I'm being nitpicky, but that isn't a great example. With Superman it wouldn't be a remake, it would be a new adaptation of the source material. I do understand what you're saying though.

liquidsnake28

09-02-2009, 09:45 PM

The best one was this...

So...fucking...freaky.

It's like the two little girls in The Shining, the simplicity of it is part of what makes it so eerie, even terrifying.

The best haunted houses seem to be the ones that have continuity from room to room and tell a cohesive story. These are very rare but they do exist and they're awesome. Unfortunately, the vast majority of haunted houses are just completely random with something entirely different and unrelated from one room to the next.

Also, it's much scarier when the rooms are cluttered and it's hard to tell where you're supposed to go. When you're fumbling around trying to make your way through, you're much more vulnerable to scares. Unfortunately, this is also rare these days because of security and liability reasons. The worst are the glow in the dark arrows pointing you in the right direction. I don't want to be told where to go motherfucker! I want to be scared!

M Sparks

09-02-2009, 09:46 PM

I know I'm being nitpicky, but that isn't a great example. With Superman it wouldn't be a remake, it would be a new adaptation of the source material. I do understand what you're saying though.

Maybe this is why we can't come up with any examples. Unless it's a slavish, shot-by-shot kind of remake, it probably varies from the source material quite a bit. (Whether the source material is a movie, a book, a comic, etc.) Therefore , when you to a sequel TO the remake, it bears little resemblance to the "original sequel"..because continuity doesn't allow it.

Let's use Back To The Future as an example instead of Superman. The first "remake" only requires a general adherence to the original idea. If you have a kid going back in a time machine and meeting his parents, you can probably call it a remake. But if you make ANOTHER one, it's not a remake of the sequel unless it involves going FORWARD, accidentally changing the future, using some kind of scheme (like the sports almanac), etc. Otherwise, it's a sequel to a remake.

Final example...when they do a "Halloween 3D" (you know they will), it will NOT be a remake of Halloween 3 which had NOTHING to do with Michael Meyers. (Though it would be hilarious if they did)

AlecEiffel

09-02-2009, 09:53 PM

I wish they had made Halloween 3: Season of the Witch 2

M Sparks

09-02-2009, 11:31 PM

I wish they had made Halloween 3: Season of the Witch 2

Actually, it would have been "Halloween 4: Season Of The Witch 2". Just like "Rambo 3" should have been called "Rambo 2: First Blood Part 3"

Unless you are suggesting that they make the next Halloween film a sequel to George Romero's early 70's film "Jack's Wife" (AKA "Season Of The Witch"). This would allow them to keep the original title, AND keep up the tradition of Halloween 3 being unrelated to the series. In fact, it would be unrelated to the original Halloween, the new Halloween, AND the original Halloween 3: Season Of The Witch...yet would still be a genuine sequel.

Which would be very, very confusing. And awesome.

nbvcide

09-03-2009, 01:56 AM

This thread just got all kinds of win..

No, not necessarily. I haven't seen it (and for that matter, I haven't seen the original Halloween 2 in ages) so I can't argue the point specifically.

Let's say that instead of "rebooting" Superman with whatever that thing was a few years back, they just remade Superman. They retell the story of him coming to earth, growing up, going to work at the newspaper, fighting Lex Luther, saving Lois, etc. They can change all the details, go for a different mood/style/whatever. But it has to have the same general story...otherwise, it's not a remake.

Now let's say it's a big hit, so they do "Superman 2:The Subtitling". If that movie does not AT LEAST involve General Zod in some way, it's NOT a remake of Superman 2. It's a sequel to a remake.

The whole "reboot" phenomenon makes things more confusing. "Star Trek" isn't really a remake of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture". But, when they do the next entry in the series, I can guarantee it will NOT be a sequel to "STII: Wrath Of Khan"

BTW...based on these descriptions, "The Hills Have Eyes 2" is NOT a remake of "The Hills Have Eyes Part 2".

I maintain that a remake OF a sequel remains exceedingly rare, and if you aren't going to count "Dawn Of The Dead" (your point is valid), then I can't think of one.

I think you make the best definition.. and the Back to the Future example is a good one,
however..

Star Trek is def not a remake.. it's not even a sequel, it's actually a prequel to The Motion Picture (as well as the original series)..

and technically, Superman Returns was actually a sequel, they simply ignored Superman III & IV and picked up at the end of Richard Donner's Part II, thus the next Superman flick couldn't be a remake anyway.. (i guess you could say Superman Returns was a remake of Part III and they just completely changed the plot.lol)

i guess one could argue that The Dark Knight, was a remake of a sequel, except that Batman Begins was actually a prequel, and so The Dark Knight is really a remake of the original (with half of Batman Forever thrown in)..

As far as Halloween 2 goes, having seen it, despite any small plot differences, it is a remake.. Michael returns. On Halloween. Looking to kill more.. with just a bit of Rob Zombie's signature on it.. It has nearly every major plot point as the original 2, except the ending..

nbvcide

09-03-2009, 02:14 AM

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/2466/antichristalltextukpost.jpg

here's a sample i found online, showing a randon scene from the movie..
http://d01.megashares.com/?d01=d92ab32

everyone i've talked to says there is no way this movie will ever play in 99% of theaters or be at Blockbuster without removing half of the film.. seriously.

if anyone is interested i will PM them a link to a good copy of the movie.. but i gotta warn ya it's pretty fucked up, and there is probably something wrong with you if you like this movie..

it kinda made me think of Van Sant meets Aronofsky doing their take on The Shining, Misery and Evil Dead... with extra fucked up sauce..

thefunkylama

09-03-2009, 02:28 AM

Extra fucked up sauce? Well. Color me intrigued.

AlecEiffel

09-03-2009, 06:17 AM

Star Trek is def not a remake.. it's not even a sequel, it's actually a prequel to The Motion Picture (as well as the original series)..

Technically Star Trek takes place in an alternate universe. The Kirk in this new movie is not supposed to be the Shatner Kirk. Leonard Nemoy Spock is not only from the future, but he's also an alternate Spock. Star Trek is complicated and dumb.

Down Rodeo

09-03-2009, 02:53 PM

So I hadn't heard about this Jonah Hex flick, but apparently Mastodon are scoring it. That already sounds pretty cool in my book.

mountmccabe

09-03-2009, 06:22 PM

Star Trek is def not a remake.. it's not even a sequel, it's actually a prequel to The Motion Picture (as well as the original series)..

I am with AlecEiffel in that your take on this is incorrect. The things that happened in The Motion Picture and The Original Series necessarily cannot follow the most recent film.

i guess one could argue that The Dark Knight, was a remake of a sequel, except that Batman Begins was actually a prequel, and so The Dark Knight is really a remake of the original (with half of Batman Forever thrown in)..

Again I think you are misunderstanding. Chronology is important but that is just one of the factors.

Batman Begins wasn't a prequel to Batman (1989.) The events of Batman Begins were mostly before the events of Batman but different liberties were taken and the universes don't lineup.

And The Dark Knight was not a remake of Batman (1989), Batman Forever simply because the former features the Joker and Two-Face. Completely different things happen in these films means it is not a remake.

I don't know anything about Halloween and I haven't seen any Superman since the one with Richard Pryor so I am not going to attempt to comment upon the analysis of those films.

sbessiso

09-03-2009, 09:10 PM

nbvcide

09-03-2009, 09:20 PM

Technically Star Trek takes place in an alternate universe. The Kirk in this new movie is not supposed to be the Shatner Kirk. Leonard Nemoy Spock is not only from the future, but he's also an alternate Spock. Star Trek is complicated and dumb.

actually, it was my understanding that the divergence doesn't occur until the midpoint of the movie, and the movie opens in the same reality as the original series.. however, through time travel the past is changed and the rest of the movie is set in an alternate universe..

i still maintain my position in that films regard however, since you cannot say Back To The Future II isn't a sequel since they change the past and the majority of the film takes place in an alternate universe.. just because a film's plot involves time travel does not negate the fact that it is a sequel or prequel..

you are correct however about the Batman series, the comments i made were to further my point.. despite the fact that in that series, the stories take place in different universes.. (but being a DC comic, that is the norm, as even in the comics themselves, stories take place in alternate universes all the time.. i'm simply stating in the Batman chronology, Batman Begins is a sequel, despite it taking place in a different universe.. *go check out "Crisis on Infinite Earths" or "Zero Hour", or any company-wide crossover from the last 25 years for more info on that)

SoulDischarge

09-03-2009, 09:50 PM

stinkbutt

09-04-2009, 12:17 AM

Supposedly Mike Judge is going back to just doing Beavis & Butthead

mountmccabe

09-04-2009, 12:50 AM

actually, it was my understanding that the divergence doesn't occur until the midpoint of the movie, and the movie opens in the same reality as the original series.. however, through time travel the past is changed and the rest of the movie is set in an alternate universe..

The divergence occurs moments in.

i still maintain my position in that films regard however, since you cannot say Back To The Future II isn't a sequel since they change the past and the majority of the film takes place in an alternate universe.. just because a film's plot involves time travel does not negate the fact that it is a sequel or prequel..

The (main) Marty that runs through all Back To The Future films is one continuous Marty; the Marty of BTTF II has, as his own personal history, the events of the 1985 original.

The James Kirk in the 2009 Star Trek is an entirely different character than the James Kirk in The Original Series and the 7 movies. Neither his personal history nor his personal future are any more than vaguely reminiscent of the history and depicted events of the character played by William Shatner. It is the same with all the other characters... except for Spock Prime.

From Spock Prime's perspective the 2009 film is a continuation of the previous film series so, I guess, technically it would be a sequel. But certainly not what is traditionally thought of as a sequel.

clumsy342

09-04-2009, 01:06 AM

Anyone interested in Todd Solondz' Life During Wartime?
...
I feel like the time I've spent waiting is at least worth a couple of still photos, a poster, or something!

Welp.. now there's some still photos from Todd Solondz' Life During Wartime. Still, I'm dying to see a trailer.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/images/blogs/thelostboy/archives/blogtodd1.jpg

http://blogs.indiewire.com/images/blogs/thelostboy/archives/blogtodd2.jpg

http://blogs.indiewire.com/images/blogs/thelostboy/archives/blogtodd5.jpg

(for those who may not know.. Paul Reubens is playing the ghost of "Andy" from Happiness, played by Jon Lovitz)

Anyone here going to the Toronto Film Fest??
or the New York Film Fest?

nbvcide

09-04-2009, 01:17 AM

So have any of you California kids seen "Extract"? I honestly cannot tell if it looks good or not. I'm in the minority here I'm sure but I thought "Office Space" was ALRIGHT, definitely not worthy of this epic cult status it's obtained. I still love Mike Judge though

i think it looks good.. i plan on doing a double feature with it and Taking Woodstock tomorrow..

The (main) Marty that runs through all Back To The Future films is one continuous Marty; the Marty of BTTF II has, as his own personal history, the events of the 1985 original.

The James Kirk in the 2009 Star Trek is an entirely different character than the James Kirk in The Original Series and the 7 movies. Neither his personal history nor his personal future are any more than vaguely reminiscent of the history and depicted events of the character played by William Shatner. It is the same with all the other characters... except for Spock Prime.

From Spock Prime's perspective the 2009 film is a continuation of the previous film series so, I guess, technically it would be a sequel. But certainly not what is traditionally thought of as a sequel.

touche, sir..

but as far as James Kirk being an entirely diff character than the original.. i would say the Charlton Heston's Robert Neville in the 70's version of I Am Legend (Omega Man) was an entirely different character than Will Smith's Robert Neville in the recent version.. but it is still a remake. One could even argue that the original Michael Myers and the Rob Zombie version of the character are two entirely different characters with different personal history and personal futures, but the films are still remakes..

Drinkey McDrinkerstein

09-04-2009, 01:54 AM

but as far as James Kirk being an entirely diff character than the original.. i would say the Charlton Heston's Robert Neville in the 70's version of I Am Legend (Omega Man) was an entirely different character than Will Smith's Robert Neville in the recent version.. but it is still a remake..

No, they are both adaptations of the same book, but one is not a remake of the other. The first of the three adaptations of the same book was 1964's The Last Man On Earth starring Vincent Price

schoolofruckus

09-04-2009, 09:59 AM

Apparently the upcoming Criterion releases of A Christmas Tale and Gomorrah were part of a greater deal between IFC and Criterion (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007989.html?categoryid=13&cs=1). This means we will probably get an Antichrist Criterion sometime next year. In other words, FUCK YES!

wmgaretjax

09-04-2009, 10:01 AM

nice.

AlecEiffel

09-04-2009, 10:06 AM

I think you're confused over the difference between remakes and new adaptations. Batman Begins and Dark Knight have nothing to do with the 90s Batman series other than the fact that they are both based on the same source material. The same goes for I am Legend.

Star Trek is a bit different because they knew the hard core Star Trek fans would throw a fit if they didn't make it jibe with everything else that had come before it. I think they did a good job on that actually, it works for both old school fans and new comers without being too confusing.

Mr.Nipples

09-04-2009, 10:16 AM

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/2466/antichristalltextukpost.jpg

here's a sample i found online, showing a randon scene from the movie..
http://d01.megashares.com/?d01=d92ab32

everyone i've talked to says there is no way this movie will ever play in 99% of theaters or be at Blockbuster without removing half of the film.. seriously.

if anyone is interested i will PM them a link to a good copy of the movie.. but i gotta warn ya it's pretty fucked up, and there is probably something wrong with you if you like this movie..

it kinda made me think of Van Sant meets Aronofsky doing a cross between The Shining and The Blair Witch Project, with extra fucked up sauce..

can i please get a link so i can watch this fucking movie?

oh, WHY THE FUCK IS THERE A BOONDOCK SAINTS SEQUEL!!!???

M Sparks

09-04-2009, 11:02 AM

As far as Halloween 2 goes, having seen it, despite any small plot differences, it is a remake.. Michael returns. On Halloween. Looking to kill more.. with just a bit of Rob Zombie's signature on it.. It has nearly every major plot point as the original 2, except the ending..

I'll have to believe you, but I heard it takes place one year later. Didn't the original Halloween II literally pick up the action the same night? I thought that after he gets shot, he winds up running off to the hospital and killing a bunch of people there. It's been so long.

M Sparks

09-04-2009, 11:07 AM

No, they are both adaptations of the same book, but one is not a remake of the other. The first of the three adaptations of the same book was 1964's The Last Man On Earth starring Vincent Price

Where does this shit figure in...?
http://eshop.threeoneshop.com/images/i_am_omega.jpg

Drinkey McDrinkerstein

09-04-2009, 11:23 AM

wht the fuck, i had no idea that was made hahaha

AlecEiffel

09-04-2009, 11:24 AM

Mark Dacascos rules.

AlecEiffel

09-04-2009, 12:33 PM

The clips I've seen don't look very good, but here's Beavis & Butthead explaining why it rules:

YuTjLSW9k94

Sounds like he's having a hard time with the Beavis voice.

SoulDischarge

09-04-2009, 02:17 PM

oh, WHY THE FUCK IS THERE A BOONDOCK SAINTS SEQUEL!!!???

It's all part of God's wrath, just like Katrina.

JewFace

09-04-2009, 02:19 PM

WTF? This looks terrible. It looks like some dreadful BBC Sci-Fi meets literary adaptation meets historic drama hybrid made on the cheap. Ugh. Those horrid CGI set pieces don't help. All that's missing is a vampire. I don't think Mr. Wilde would be amused.

dY93VUQSMo4

amyzzz

09-04-2009, 02:24 PM

I agree that the CGI is awful, but I am DEFINITELY going to see that.

AlecEiffel

09-04-2009, 02:39 PM

Wait...that's coming out NEXT WEEK? And we are just now seeing the trailer?

JewFace

09-04-2009, 02:46 PM

I'm guessing those might be UK release dates? I re-watched it and it looks even worse the second time through. I'll stick with the original film. No, actually I'll stick with the book.

iv3rdawG

09-04-2009, 03:49 PM

Foq3klCBf8I

humanoid

09-04-2009, 04:06 PM

man, the near future sucks. If 2012 doesn't get us, we have that bleak outlook to worry about, then a few years down the line, we have the rise of the machines. We're pretty fucked

nbvcide

09-04-2009, 04:41 PM

man, the near future sucks. If 2012 doesn't get us, we have that bleak outlook to worry about, then a few years down the line, we have the rise of the machines. We're pretty fucked

LOLOLOL

I think you're confused over the difference between remakes and new adaptations. Batman Begins and Dark Knight have nothing to do with the 90s Batman series other than the fact that they are both based on the same source material. The same goes for I am Legend.

i suppose.. and referring to them as remakes & adaptations is well and good, but i really don't see the distinction, aren't remakes themselves by definition an adaptation?

as far as Batman, lack of continuity is a staple of DC comics, Batman in particular.. issue #650, or whatever, would have nothing to do with the same character or universe as #375, but they would still be considered the same series.. in fact, the fact that the original movies and the new ones have anything to do with each other makes them even more the same series in the batman mythology in my eyes, because having that distinction keeps it even more true to the source material..

a greater deal between IFC and Criterion[/URL]. This means we will probably get an Antichrist Criterion sometime next year. In other words, FUCK YES!

& i believe that will be the only major release this film will get in the States..

I'll have to believe you, but I heard it takes place one year later. Didn't the original Halloween II literally pick up the action the same night? I thought that after he gets shot, he winds up running off to the hospital and killing a bunch of people there. It's been so long.

the new movie picks up at the very end of the 1st one, but after fifteen or twenty minutes forwards to the next year.. but the exact same things in the original II happen in 2, just set a year later.. sort of incorporating the plot points of II with the theme of everything after 3..

miscorrections

09-04-2009, 04:44 PM

I agree that the CGI is awful, but I am DEFINITELY going to see that.

I'll probably watch it just for Ben Barnes. Not in theaters, though.

nbvcide

09-04-2009, 04:48 PM

btw, watched Soylent Green last night..

great, great flick, and if any movie is gonna be updated and remade, it should be THIS one..

i can totally see Clive Owen pulling it off.. maybe Gerald Butler.

schoolofruckus

09-04-2009, 04:49 PM

& i believe that will be the only major release this film will get in the States.. i don't even see how this film can get rated, even an nc-17.. Criterion does true unrated though right? this shit makes the unrated Requiem for a Dreams look like a PG flick.. and makes Dreamers look like a family film..

Antichrist is hitting theaters (albeit not many) and VOD on October 23rd, courtesy of IFC. This was covered a long time ago.

nbvcide

09-04-2009, 04:59 PM

nbvcide

09-04-2009, 05:01 PM

a high-quality R5 of District 9 has also just been released online.. 1.36gigs, HQ

anyone wanting to see it or wanting a downloaded copy knows where to reach me..

iv3rdawG

09-04-2009, 05:05 PM

Didn't I post the list of theaters that are going to play it? Anyway, here it is again:

http://office.mammothnyc.com/ifcschedule/films/antichrist/

Site seems to be taking a while to load but the release schedule is there.

schoolofruckus

09-04-2009, 05:12 PM

like i said...
major release..

i can guarantee that nothing outside of some brave art house theaters will show this..
with the possible exception of the original I Spit On Your Grave or Two Girls One Cup, this is easily the most fucked up thing i've ever watched..

Unless your definition of "major release" is 2,000+ multiplexes, then yes, it IS a major release. As big of one as von Trier has ever had, at least. It has nothing to do with how "fucked up" it is. Even his relatively tame films like Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark were playing less than 150 theaters in the middle of their run.

iv3rdawG

09-04-2009, 05:15 PM

I think this is right but keep checking back at that link. This is for October 23. It will expand:

Landmark's Kendall Square Cinemas in Cambridge, MA
The Music Box Theatre in Chicago, IL
The IFC Film Center in New York City, NY
Landmark's Bridge Theatre in San Francisco, CA
Landmark's E Street Cinemas in Washington DC
Landmark's Nuart Theatre in West Los Angeles, CA

nbvcide

09-04-2009, 05:21 PM

playing nationwide, playing in more than a handful of theaters simultaneously, being available at any chain, playing outside NY/LA/Chicago/SF, not having a staggered release, getting any kind of rating from the MPAA..
these are characteristics of a major release.. *edit: i don't wanna get into an nc-17 debate..

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/tickermaster/listing.cfm?TMID=4975:Antichrist
Antichrist
Limited Release

Limited Release does not = Major Release
it really is torture horror porn.. but done in an indie art film way.. unique film to say the least.. not a film to enjoy though or be entertained by, just too fucked up.. but that doesn't mean it isn't brilliant..

schoolofruckus

09-04-2009, 05:27 PM

wmgaretjax

09-04-2009, 05:47 PM

it really is torture horror porn.. but done in an indie art film way..

i can barely contain my excitement at the prospect of more enlightening analysis from you.

wmgaretjax

09-04-2009, 05:55 PM

hey i didn't come up with it.. that's from comingsoon.net

i simply agreed with the analysis, cause it's true.

plagiarizing bad surface level observations. that's all the evidence i need that you work for a tv conglomerate.

oh, and to your edit, i can.

wmgaretjax

09-04-2009, 06:06 PM

you ramble on but never say anything.

wmgaretjax

09-04-2009, 06:08 PM

first, second, third and fourth if we count the average number of substantial, additive edits you make to a post.

nbvcide

09-04-2009, 06:14 PM

Okay Mr. Local TV Station Critic Who Is Not a Critic. I'm not going to get into one of your Randy-esque semantics debates again. The point is - this film is getting the same level of exposure that any other film of similar budget and origin is getting. It's not some fringe release that's being bastardized because of its content.

who's the one arguing semantics?

i simply said the film wasn't getting a major release. you said it WAS getting a major release. it isn't getting a major release, you were wrong.
it is simply getting a lot of attention, and that IS because of it's controversial content.

i've seen the film, i'm aware of what it is and what it's trying to be.. but if i were to argue semantics with you, i'd remind you of the countless Cannes films and microbudget films that have received a wide release.. even if this was picked up by a major studio and had all the money in the world, it still couldn't EVER receive a major release, based on content alone.. not in this country anyway..

(btw, i will not be reviewing this film on our station.. haha i think the fcc would revoke our broadcasting license if i even described a few of the scenes, even in medical terms LOL
and schoolofruckos, i do not work for a 'local tv station', it is actually an international broadcasting company, but we do air in the local area..

*EDIT: you seem to have a bad memory.. i'm not a critic who's not a critc.. i'm a writer who's not a professional writer.. i AM a critic, remember?

i can barely contain my excitement at the prospect of more enlightening analysis from you.

hey i didn't come up with it.. that's from comingsoon.net

i simply agreed with the analysis, cause it's true.
you can't possibly watch the movie and say it isn't..
and 98-99% of the average movie-goer could never sit through this..
don't get me wrong, i liked(?) the movie, but i have eccentric tastes, and i'm possibly boarderline masochistic for saving a copy with the intent of maybe watching it more than once (i wouldn't watch it alone again, of course, that would just be creepy/weird)..

all i'm saying is it's NOT a popcorn flick, and i can't imagine seeing anything like this outside a 'sploitation nite at the New Beverly.. except this film isn't funny. at all.

plagiarizing bad surface level observations. that's all the evidence i need that you work for a tv conglomerate.

oh, and to your edit, i can.
i don't work for a conglomerate.. they only have holdings in radio & tv broadcasting.. like i've said, it's an independent company..

as far as you having seen it and you don't think it's an indie art film with scenes of torture horror porn...
um, okay, to each his own.

(*i don't use the word porn to mean sexually gratifying, i mean it in the real live sex acts way.. the contexts of this movie, of course, NOT being arousing in any shape or form.. oh god, at least i hope so.. i suppose people that jerk off to Two Girls One Cup might find this sexually stimulating, but i doubt it.. maybe someone with a sadist/snuff/blood fetish who hopefully is watching it on an empty stomach hahaha)

you ramble on but never say anything.

my original posts on the subject say all, subsequent posts simply elaborate based on furthered discussion and debate..

i suppose i could have lavish, SPOILER-filled posts, but that's not my style.. i was simply offering my take on the film. and like i said, i'd love to really discuss the nuances of this film, but as very few have even seen it yet, that isn't really possible at the moment..

to the months ahead, then..
of course, i now realize i've probably built this movie up too much.. and if someone in the future watches it, may say 'oh it wasn't THAT bad'..
i'm just giving the first impressions i had upon watching it..

first, second, third and fourth if we count the average number of substantial, additive edits you make to a post.

bad writers don't edit..

like i've said before, would you have every sentence be a separate post, do you relish the chance to latch onto misspellings and bad grammar?
the edit button is there for a reason.. i wish more people on here would use it..

since when do all edits need to be made substantial?? how many book editors add substantial amounts of content to an author's work do you think?

i don't want to argue about this movie anymore with anyone who hasn't seen it.. i've sent the link to at least 4 others on here, i WOULD love to discuss this with people who HAVE seen it however..)

*EDIT: Ah, i love the power of editing...

SoulDischarge

09-04-2009, 06:21 PM

You could also just put some thought into your original post before you post it. I wish more people on here would use that.

nbvcide

09-04-2009, 06:28 PM

by the time a well, thought out post is completed.. several others have been posted in the meantime..
thus the need to go back and edit an earlier post to keep it from being already obsolete to the thread's discussion...

or, i could just be a dick without adding anything to the discussion..

wmgaretjax

09-04-2009, 06:31 PM

You could also just put some thought into your original post before you post it. I wish more people on here would use that.

THIS was my point, not a reference to people editing for punctuation and spelling.

SoulDischarge

09-04-2009, 06:35 PM

or, i could just be a dick without adding anything to the discussion..

Would anyone notice the difference?

nbvcide

09-04-2009, 06:36 PM

THIS was my point, not a reference to people editing for punctuation and spelling.

the post's you referenced were edited to reflect grammar and punctuation..
or the later combining of several, shorter posts..

i never even changed the wording of my posts, just added to them..

Would anyone notice the difference?

nope.
being a dick on this message board is like breathing..

of course, never adding to a discussion is the easiest way to never have your ideas attacked..

wmgaretjax

09-04-2009, 06:36 PM

Would anyone notice the difference?

I assume our assumption is that he hasn't been a dick, and not that he's added anything to the discussion?

wmgaretjax

09-04-2009, 06:37 PM

just added to them..

yes dipshit. that's what I was referring to. when you post on a message board people respond to your posts. things get ridiculous if the two sentence post that people respond to turns into 4 paragraphs over the course of a bunch of edits.

say it at once, or say it later. preserve the linearity. let history run its course!

schoolofruckus

09-04-2009, 06:38 PM

Your problem is that you act like you're the only one who knows anything about it. I've seen 80% of Lars von Trier's output, and he's one of my 5 favorite filmmakers of all time. I guarantee I know more about this film sight unseen - what it means, why it was made, the worldview it expresses - than you would if you took a semester-long analysis of it. Therefore, I would much prefer to wait 7 more weeks to see it than watch it on my 15" laptop, just so I can have my opinion taken seriously by someone whose understanding of it is less deep than the physical DVD it's burned on.

Your other problem is that you have one way of looking at things, and that is as a hack pseudo-critic who wastes far too many hours in the dark with the worst (but most well-financed) that cinema has to offer. You clearly don't have enough understanding of independent film to know that a true independent film - not Garden State or Slumdog Millionaire or The Wrestler, but a film that is genuinely free of the American studio system - hit the jackpot if it's getting an IFC release in 6 cities. The theaters Evan listed are among the most major houses in the country for people who truly love cinema (i.e., people who wouldn't be caught dead wallowing in the kind of shit you were boasting about having seen a few weeks ago). I said in the beginning that it's obviously not a major release in the Spiderman sense of the word, as is clear to anyone with even rudimentary comprehension skills. But if you look at it as someone who follows independent and foreign film - who has seen numerous masterpiece-level films (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0841925/) take the festival circuit by storm and then get shafted on their domestic release in recent years - Antichrist getting a platform release in 2009 mere months after its Cannes debut, is an unqualified success.

If Evan's right, I will be at the Nuart on Friday 10/23 for the first primetime show. After that, I will tell you what a retard you are all over again, and you'll have no choice but to listen.

wmgaretjax

09-04-2009, 06:41 PM

you don't have ideas jackoff. you are a fucking xerox machine at best.

Hannahrain

09-04-2009, 06:42 PM

I love Angry Jared.

miscorrections

09-04-2009, 06:43 PM

You're just making that movie up, aren't you.

SoulDischarge

09-04-2009, 06:44 PM

I have the full 6 set Angry Jared action figure collection. You Don't Know What The Fuck You're Talking About is my favorite one though.

wmgaretjax

09-04-2009, 06:45 PM

I have the full 6 set Angry Jared action figure collection. You Don't Know What The Fuck You're Talking About is my favorite one though.

and the most valuable... for obvious reasons.

nbvcide

09-04-2009, 06:46 PM

Your other problem is that you have one way of looking at things, and that is as a hack pseudo-critic who wastes far too many hours in the dark with the worst (but most well-financed) that cinema has to offer. You clearly don't have enough understanding of independent film to know that a true independent film - not Garden State or Slumdog Millionaire or The Wrestler, but a film that is genuinely free of the American studio system - hit the jackpot if it's getting an IFC release in 6 cities. The theaters Evan listed are among the most major houses in the country for people who truly love cinema (i.e., people who wouldn't be caught dead wallowing in the kind of shit you were boasting about having seen a few weeks ago). I said in the beginning that it's obviously not a major release in the Spiderman sense of the word, as is clear to anyone with even rudimentary comprehension skills. But if you look at it as someone who follows independent and foreign film - who has seen numerous masterpiece-level films (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0841925/) take the festival circuit by storm and then get shafted on their domestic release in recent years - Antichrist getting a platform release in 2009 mere months after its Cannes debut, is an unqualified success.

you keep bringing up quality in films as if that anything to do with what was talked about..
it doesn't matter how good a film is, a Limited release is not a Wide release, no matter how much of a 'masterpiece' it is ..
you need to learn to admit when you are wrong. wow, you've seen 80% of Lars' work, congrats, now please stop talking about the ones you haven't seen as if you know anything about them..
you need to stop assuming you know anything about me.. i can assure you i didn't watch the movie on a laptop or a dvd.. and btw, The Landmark in Westwood is my theatre of choice (fuck the Arclight!lol)
please don't explain what constitutes an independent film to someone who got their start working on them.. over half the films i worked on never even saw the light of day.. having watched over 375 films last year, don't think i only watch the worst of the worst simply because i saw 50 films that were worse than The Happening..

You're just making that movie up, aren't you.

i'm not sure if that is directed at me or not, but if so..
if i were to describe a couple of scenes to you, you WOULD be convinced i was making this shit up..