Movie News, Reviews, and Discussion Super-Thread

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Yeah, and whenever I tried to get them to actually proofread what the fuck they were writing or reconsider writing editorials on why Michael Bay is awesome and haters ftl they would act like I had e-leprosy or something. That site was (and still is, from what I've seen) such a piece of shit.

TBH, I figured you were working for them for the access you could get to festivals and interviews and shit.

That's why I originally signed on, until I realized they really held no pull whatsoever. The most high profile interviews/access they got was from the folks behind Boondock Saints II  

[Cheebs]

No I didn't like the idea of rewriting just about everything that had to do with Nazi ideology, leaders, and propaganda.  Those are actual real things that a normal person should not be fantasizing some alternate reality about.

What is the point of movies if we have to remain 100% historically accurate? That's what docs are for. Raiders of the lost ark abused nazi history almost as much yet still was great.

Yeah, and whenever I tried to get them to actually proofread what the fuck they were writing or reconsider writing editorials on why Michael Bay is awesome and haters ftl they would act like I had e-leprosy or something. That site was (and still is, from what I've seen) such a piece of shit.

TBH, I figured you were working for them for the access you could get to festivals and interviews and shit.

It was me who pointed out the site to him and that they were looking for writers. My bad.  

[The Dark Shake 3000]

No I didn't like the idea of rewriting just about everything that had to do with Nazi ideology, leaders, and propaganda.  Those are actual real things that a normal person should not be fantasizing some alternate reality about.

So I take it you hate movies, then? Because that's basically what all movies do. Subvert and reimagine real things for entertainment value and (occasionally, and certainly in Basterds' case) as commentary.

[Ichirou]

No I didn't like the idea of rewriting just about everything that had to do with Nazi ideology, leaders, and propaganda.  Those are actual real things that a normal person should not be fantasizing some alternate reality about.

No offense, but that type of shit happens ALL THE TIME in movies, dude.  Multiple people get 'condensed' into one character, timelines are changed for dramatic effect, people are shown attending events they were never at IRL, etc., etc.

[Cheebs]

No I didn't like the idea of rewriting just about everything that had to do with Nazi ideology, leaders, and propaganda.  Those are actual real things that a normal person should not be fantasizing some alternate reality about.

So I take it you hate movies, then? Because that's basically what all movies do. Subvert and reimagine real things for entertainment value and (occasionally, and certainly in Basterds' case) as commentary.

A movie can turn hitler into a hero who secretly freed Jews for all I care, as long as it is good it doesn't matter if a movie shits on history/a religion/etc.

[Ichirou]

My mom actually mentioned how silly she thought it was that Hitler gets his head blown off at the end of Inglorious Bastards when that never happened IRL, until I mentioned to her how one of her favorite movies, Michael Collins, has a ton of historical inaccuracies/inventions.  Seriously, why is one thought of as a 'good' historical film while the other gets dismissed as "a popcorn flick."

If anything, what Michael Collins does is more egregious since less people know about that part of Irish history so they'll take what's said in the movie as the gospel truth without seeing all the numerous little inaccuracies that constantly add up throughout the picture's running time.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

It seriously perplexes me how someone can hate on movies that take dramatic license and employ fictional elements in service of it's own idealogy. I honestly can't see how someone can claim to enjoy any movies with that sense of self-righteous mock anger.

[Cheebs]

John Travolta's movie about Bill Clinton, Primary Colors, changed a lot about what actually happened. I say we burn the motherfucker.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Citizen Kane is supposedly about William Randal Hearst, but in this "movie" they changed his name and he's played by some dickhead named Orson Welles. What a crock of shit.

[Ichirou]

John Travolta's movie about Bill Clinton, Primary Colors, changed a lot about what actually happened. I say we burn the motherfucker.

They even changed Clinton's name! Those assholes!

[Ichirou]

I think this is the most I've posted in a movie thread since I came back to EB.

[Cheebs]

I think this is the most I've posted in a movie thread since I came back to EB.

Read pd's first post in the topic and you'll see why.

[Great Rumbler]

Yeah, I don't mind IB's historical inaccuracies because WWII is a subject that has been drawn from for 65 years and has been pounded into the American consciousness for at least as long. It's a thoroughly dissected subject. More than that, however, is how IB doesn't try to "trick" the audience into thinking that what it's portraying is the absolute truth [as with a movie like Pearl Harbor] and goes out of it's way to come right up to you and say "I know this isn't what happened, but...". It also does what it does to play with expectations. Did anyone honestly think that Hitler would buy it in the end? Be honest!

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Yeah, I don't mind IB's historical inaccuracies because WWII is a subject that has been drawn from for 65 years and has been pounded into the American consciousness for at least as long. It's a thoroughly dissected subject. More than that, however, is how IB doesn't try to "trick" the audience into thinking that what it's portraying is the absolute truth [as with a movie like Pearl Harbor] and goes out of it's way to come right up to you and say "I know this isn't what happened, but...". It also does what it does to play with expectations. Did anyone honestly think that Hitler would buy it in the end? Be honest!

I read the script before seeing it, but judging by the reactions around me like every time I saw it no one thought Tarantino would go all the way. Then again, it's fucking Tarantino. I'm surprised he didn't have Eli Roth strap the motherfucker to a chair and slowly slice his dick off while dancing to "Heart of Glass".

[Ichirou]

I read the script too.  I think it got leaked before filming even began.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

I read the script too.  I think it got leaked before filming even began.

It got leaked like the week Tarantino finished it, IIRC. I remember reading it before they had even announced Pitt was attached, when it was still just a rumor.

[brawndolicious]

No I didn't like the idea of rewriting just about everything that had to do with Nazi ideology, leaders, and propaganda.  Those are actual real things that a normal person should not be fantasizing some alternate reality about.

What is the point of movies if we have to remain 100% historically accurate? That's what docs are for. Raiders of the lost ark abused nazi history almost as much yet still was great.

I don't care if they rewrote some things in THIS movie to make the story flow better or be funny.  But the movie's goal is to make the viewer want revenge against the Nazi characters which doesn't work at all when you rewrite what actual Nazi's were like and what their propaganda techniques were like.  I can enjoy it as a popcorn flick but nothing more.

[Ichirou]

I want to rebut your argument, nintenho, but could you clarify this for me first - How did it rewrite what actual Nazis were like?  Do you mean personality-wise or what?

And Nazis were fairly famous for using films for propaganda purposes - Triumph of the Will, man.  Herr Goebbels was heavily involved in the film industry.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

No I didn't like the idea of rewriting just about everything that had to do with Nazi ideology, leaders, and propaganda.  Those are actual real things that a normal person should not be fantasizing some alternate reality about.

What is the point of movies if we have to remain 100% historically accurate? That's what docs are for. Raiders of the lost ark abused nazi history almost as much yet still was great.

I don't care if they rewrote some things in THIS movie to make the story flow better or be funny.  But the movie's goal is to make the viewer want revenge against the Nazi characters which doesn't work at all when you rewrite what actual Nazi's were like and what their propaganda techniques were like.  I can enjoy it as a popcorn flick but nothing more.

That's not the movie's goal. You still seem to think Tarantino was just making a simple revenge movie, when the rest of us have already told you what's really going on. Inglourious Basterds is a commentary about movies more than anything else, and for that alone I can't help but admire what Tarantino was going for.

[Ichirou]

TBH, you could say that about most of Tarantino's movies, but I think what nintenho is perplexed about is the fact that it was done in such a different matter than we'd become accustomed to (i.e., taking complete scenes and sequences from other movies and repurposing them).

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Eh, Basterds took it in a far, far more epic direction than anything he's done before. Those are more informed by movies than necessarily commenting on them, I think.

[Ichirou]

Point taken.

[Powerslave]

The best thing about Inglorious Basterds was without a doubt Hans Landa. What an amazing performance

[brawndolicious]

I want to rebut your argument, nintenho, but could you clarify this for me first - How did it rewrite what actual Nazis were like?  Do you mean personality-wise or what?
And Nazis were fairly famous for using films for propaganda purposes - Triumph of the Will, man.  Herr Goebbels was heavily involved in the film industry.

It doesn't really try to show any spectrum of emotions and beliefs to the characters.  Their all meant to serve a role to the alternate reality.  Basically yes, their personalities are not really anything like real human beings.

German propaganda was a very serious, important operation to anybody who spends time reading up on it and so it wouldn't make sense to really rewrite or even include it in the movie unless you were keeping fairly close to how it's normally portrayed.  IB basically says it was just the bad guys' pornography.

That's not the movie's goal. You still seem to think Tarantino was just making a simple revenge movie, when the rest of us have already told you what's really going on. Inglourious Basterds is a commentary about movies more than anything else, and for that alone I can't help but admire what Tarantino was going for.

Can't really buy that when every character shows sadistic undertones and is barely given enough screentime in 2.5 hours of alternate history.  If it was a much more focused and even movie, then you might have a point but all the self-referential commentary and violence don't add up to much when they're so random.  It feels too shallow to even be considered as exploiting other WW2 movie stereotypes.  Maybe if you're evaluating it on paper, before even going to the theater, then it seems like the parts should add up to more than just a revenge-flick but it doesn't deliver on that goal when actually watching the movie.

[Eric P]

just finished Vampyres, the 1974 sapphic vampire film.  it started off horrible but then got better and better until they ran out of money and forgot to put a real ending in.

very fun.

edit: there's an interview piece w/ the actresses and they've aged quite well

[The Dark Shake 3000]

That's a personal opinion, nintenho. That doesn't mean the film is a shallow popcorn movie, just that you didn't connect with (or misinterpreted) what the film was going for.

[brawndolicious]

popcorn flick.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

<<Something here about the unstoppable force and the unmovable object>>

[AdmiralViscen]

Inglourious Basterds is fucking awesome. I'd watch it again right now. Maybe I will.

[WrikaWrek]

The girl with the Dragon Tattoo - Pretty good "detective" movie. All starts with the disappearance of a girl 40 years ago! Recommend it if you like these kind of movies, like the Zodiac and shit.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

The girl with the Dragon Tattoo - Pretty good "detective" movie. All starts with the disappearance of a girl 40 years ago! Recommend it if you like these kind of movies, like the Zodiac and shit.

Have you read the novel? I picked it up after tons of people raved about it and it was such a boring mess I stopped slogging through it about halfway (it's long as fuck too, so it's not like I didn't give it a chance).

[WrikaWrek]

The girl with the Dragon Tattoo - Pretty good "detective" movie. All starts with the disappearance of a girl 40 years ago! Recommend it if you like these kind of movies, like the Zodiac and shit.

Have you read the novel? I picked it up after tons of people raved about it and it was such a boring mess I stopped slogging through it about halfway (it's long as fuck too, so it's not like I didn't give it a chance).

No. Don't think it was even released over here. Movie isn't boring at all though!

[Ichirou]

<<Something here about the unstoppable force and the unmovable object>>

Yeah, that's why I never argue films with nintenho.

[Cheebs]

Girl with the dragon tattoo is coming to my local art house in a week or so, I really wanna see it. David Fincher is doing the American remake, apparently starring Carey Mulligan. That should be interesting.

[Ichirou]

For serious?  Color me interested in the remake now.  Fincher remaking this is akin to Scorsese remaking Infernal Affairs.  I have no doubt the American version will end up being the superior one, unlike with the whole Let The Right One In debacle.

[Solo]

I didnt come over here from GAF, past the dredges of Mupepe's forum, and jump out of a fucking aer-o-plane to teach am nintendo lessons in humanity.

[Ichirou]

[Phoenix Dark]

Where The Wild Things Are

Great film, and perhaps the best I've seen on childhood/growing up since Melana ( ). It's not hard to see why the film kinda bombed. It's a film about childhood that's not necessarily for children. I loved just about everything about it, and it sounded like the voice actors had a fucking blast playing kids.

[CajoleJuice]

Girl with the dragon tattoo is coming to my local art house in a week or so, I really wanna see it. David Fincher is doing the American remake, apparently starring Carey Mulligan. That should be interesting.

It's pretty great. And I'm also very interested in the remake purely due to Fincher...but Mulligan, really? Hmm.

[brob]

The original books are very formulaic imo. They all conform to the Scandinavian crime novel tropes and whatnot (yes, that's a valid sub-genre). But they're very popular, although some of that can be explained by the author being dead and the writings being "discovered" posthumously then hyped through the fucking roof on that one tangent. :|

[Great Rumbler]

Where The Wild Things Are

Great film, and perhaps the best I've seen on childhood/growing up since Melana ( ). It's not hard to see why the film kinda bombed. It's a film about childhood that's not necessarily for children. I loved just about everything about it, and it sounded like the voice actors had a fucking blast playing kids.

Yeah, I loved it too. It feels much more earnest and thoughtful than most children's movies, even thought it's really targeted towards people who are already past that stage in their life. I like how it doesn't padder to kids or rely on basement-level humor and actually shows the pains and trials of being at an age where it feels like no one understands you.

[Cheebs]

Yeah, Wild Things was great. 2009 was a fantastic year for kids movies. Fantastic Mr. Fox, Where The Wild Things Are, Up, Coraline, etc. Anyone looking at that kind of output and thinks the kids movies were better when they were a kid are looking at things through nostalgic-tinted glasses.

[etiolate]

Yeah, Wild Things was great. 2009 was a fantastic year for kids movies. Fantastic Mr. Fox, Where The Wild Things Are, Up, Coraline, etc. Anyone looking at that kind of output and thinks the kids movies were better when they were a kid are looking at things through nostalgic-tinted glasses.

Except that films like Wild Things and Coraline hearken back to a time where kid movies were more willing to be frightening and dangerous, and Mr. Fox's stop motion recalls earlier kid movies as well. (Frog and Toad stuff)

[The Dark Shake 3000]

I still think WTWTA was vastly underrated while people seem to have gravitated more towards Mr. Fox, which I didn't dislike but find kind of hollow and mediocre. WTWTA is all heart, whereas Foxy feels more like a carefree stylistic exercise that's pretty uneven and trite, all things considered.

[Cheebs]

Mr. Fox is a Wes Anderson movie that happens to have talking animals in it. Your enjoyment of that movie is more dependent on whether you tend to like Wes Anderson movies than anything else.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Mr. Fox is a Wes Anderson movie that happens to have talking animals in it. Your enjoyment of that movie is more dependent on whether you tend to like Wes Anderson movies than anything else.

I do tend to like Wes' films, but Fox just doesn't seem to have much heart. The closest it gets is when the Foxies tell their douchebag son it's okay to be different, which just feels like halfassed overhearted sentimentalism for the sake of it. It doesn't come close to either Rushmore or Tenenbaums, imo. I will concede that it's better than Life Aquatic, though, and probably on the same playing field as Darjeeling (in that it's enjoyable on the surface but ultimately kind of hollow and forgettable).

[Cheebs]

Well saying it is better than Life Aquatic is pretty easy, that is easily Wes Anderson's weakest movie I think. The only great part of that was the awesome Buckaroo Banzai homage.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Life Aquatic is still better than Bottle Rocket, though. I kind of hate Bottle Rocket.

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

The Ghost Writer, oddly enough, reminds of Michael Clayton. If I had to pick a corny Hollywood log line for The Ghost Writer, it'd be, "It's like Michael Clayton meets *The Manchurian Candidate."

* The good one, not the mediocre remake.

Yeah, I kinda had that thought too, coming outside of the theater I was thinking that I just saw what would have been a bang-up sequel to The Manchurain Candidate.

I really liked The Ghost Writer, clever as heck, and I can also easily recommend The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.  I've read reviews that claim the film is better then its source material, and I believe it.  Anyways, I don't think even Fincher will keep each and every single fucked up element (there's lots of em') of the original, so get your...

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Rapey Nazi Incesty

[close]

entertainment while you can.

[Great Rumbler]

I still think WTWTA was vastly underrated while people seem to have gravitated more towards Mr. Fox, which I didn't dislike but find kind of hollow and mediocre. WTWTA is all heart, whereas Foxy feels more like a carefree stylistic exercise that's pretty uneven and trite, all things considered.

I liked Mr. Fox, it's a bit shallow but it's a nice change of pace from other animated movies out there and it's got some really funny parts to it. Having said that, I'd probably put WTWTA above it since it takes some risks that Mr. Fox shies away from or only briefly touches upon. Still, I'd say that both are definitely worth watching and agree with etiolate that last year was a great year for kid's movies.

[Cindi Mayweather]

CHEEBS, SHAKE AND ICHI BACK

OMG

[Philip Cardgage]

Watched KIDS last night. Movie aged surprisingly very well.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Watched KIDS last night. Movie aged surprisingly very well.

Nah.

[Philip Cardgage]

Watched KIDS last night. Movie aged surprisingly very well.

Nah.

oh ok 

[The Dark Shake 3000]

I didn't think it aged particularly well when I watched it like three years ago, but whatever. It all seemed so overdone and afterschool special (with edge) to me.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Watching Mulholland Drive for the first time in a few years. I still don't get much of what's going on, but I've resigned myself to thinking that's the point. I think it was Ebert's review that said the movie literally functions as a dream for the entirety of its runtime, and that's exactly the reaction I have to it as well.

But it's also a wet dream, because omg the sex scenes

[bud]

i think it's the best lesbian sex scene ever in a non-adult film.

a couple of years after seeing the movie for the first time, i went online to, uhm, see it again, and was disappointed when i found out that the brunette chick--the hotter one--had fake boobs. watts' titties were really nice, though.

i read somewhere that you could actually see the brunette's vagina in the cut shown in theaters

why can't i find that online

[The Dark Shake 3000]

I can practically hear an army of disinterested men perking up when the first sex scene begins, even just sitting alone in front of my computer.

And yeah the brunette is fucking gorgeous. Implants or no she is perfect as the lusty pin-up type.

[The Fake Shemp]

Always thought the movie was kind of boring, but I'm not much of a Lynch fan.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Out of all of Lynch's films (besides Inland Empire, which I still haven't seen) it's definitely his most divisive. Even stuff like Blue Velvet and Lost Highway are pretty cut and dried when you get past the surreal red herrings and what have you, but Mulholland is literally just one two hour mindfuck for the most part. I have a few theories about what might be going on, but like I said they're pretty much null and void since it seems like Lynch is actively making a movie which will perplex people and which lulls audiences into a sort of dream-like hypnosis. Either you roll with it or you don't, I guess.