LMAO, this show can be so funny in unexpected ways, like when Sam yells "Not it!" when Michael asks about someone going to do some task, I forgot what it was, and Sam was like, "I bet you weren't expecting that, were you?" --- that shit was hilarious. Michael looks at him like, "is this guy serious right now?" and he says, "Alright but that means you have to run the next errand." Sam agrees, but when the next errand comes he yells, "Not it!" again and Michaels like WTF you agreed and Sam says, "Yeah but the 'Not it' makes me exempt from that agreement." He ends up having to do it, but still, moments like that are fucking hilarious, this show is so good. Sam is such a great character.
Been too busy to post, but I just wanted to let you know that, while I'll definitely have a more substantial response for you soon, I've been reading your posts as you've been progressing through Burn Notice and I'm beyond ecstatic that you're enjoying it as much as you are.
I saw that on IMDB something like 75% of the scores were either 1s or 10s, with over a thousand ratings, all before the movie has even seen general release.
So yeah. I picked the book back up. Guess now I have to write something about it. I, Uhh... Umm. Yeah it was a really intresting read!
You know, I once read somewhere, that the curse of Sociologists and their works is that everything they say appear as obvious to the reader after it has been said. That is to say, the reader would not have been able to have articulated it before reading it, but once upon having absorbed the information it appeares as an obvious conclusions to them all along. Therefore greatly reducing said readers appreciation for Sociological studies because of said phenomenon.
But yeah, I had several "hey I've noticed that!" moments while reading the book. The strangely "super-Aryan" categorization of villains -- so to artificially create another "race" for the heroes to vent themselves on -- for example. Or the weirdly therapeutic relationship heroes have with their sidekicks and the even weirder cathartic dispossition they seem to display towards bloodshed, gruesomeness and violence.
And I did nod vigorously in approval when King went on his "taking the text seriously" rants. As well as the delimitations of analysing in an dominant/restraint approach.
Towards the end of the book he started using the word "sodomy" like the rest of us would use a fucking comma. Got pretty weird there for a while. But I did find his takedown of the whole "undercurrents of homoeroticism" theory in action films interesting. How it's not really something subliminal, and that instead confrontations of violence and bloodshed is what cops crave as a sort of sexuality. That's it's some sort of catharsis for them to do these things, instead of a repressed desire channeling themselves in these depictions, since it confirms who they are and allows them to use their functions in a society that otherwise considers these functions to be of little use or application.
I guess my greatest frustration was with the books lack of "history" in the concept of "lost ground". King never really goes in the "why" parts of his analysis. But just by betitling his theory as "lost ground" he's bringing the readers thoughts towards the opinion that this is due to some recent phenomena. So the "why" question on "lost ground" hovers in the readers mind through the entire book.
For example, many of the phenomenons that King talks about as indicitive of "lost ground" can be found in the earlier Western genre. Working-class, damage-dealing men that struggle with the concepts of women, domesticness, institutialism, elitism, and civicness in relation to their work -- as well as their relation to the villian -- is also plenty a-present here. So what's the diffrence, one wonders? What has changed from then-to-now? And likewise, many of these tropes are present in the action-cinema of other nations (like Hong Kong, for example). If "lost ground" is a sociological concept that has been spawned due to American culture, why the similarity. And what is the diffrence between the two?
Basically, not even touching the "why" question is frustrating damit!
Yeah I thought I'd have more to say after reading a 200+ pages book. But my general feeling is one of "I've been suspecting something like this before but never been able to conceptualize/articulate it". Though I still find myself strangely on the fence about a lot of things. I suppose I'm not sure how to process a lot of it. But yeah, thanks for the recommendation. It was an interesting, cohesive read!
yesterday and I was pleasantly suprised. It's not a great movie by any means but it's definitely something different than what I'm used to. I don't know if it's the directors (Miike) style but it was full of little details and ''odd'' choices that you wouldn't see in western cinematography (unless you really tried to). Suddendly turning a scene into a cartoon, weird music effects and a rich plot with history that somehow felt superficial. All cool little things that I liked. The way they implemented the soundtrack was amazing aswell, every sound you hear is displayed on screen with it's point of origin. Very clever.
Haha yeah I sort of hated that movie. I honestly can't really memorize a good "why" I did so but the movie just did not work for me. I guess the occasional goofy, ludacris tone just didn't sit well with me. Especially since this was suppose to be a love-letter to Spaghetti Westerns.
I agree though that it's just filled with little quirks that make it memorable. Just the fact that they made all those Japanese actors speak English is hilarious enough on it's own. Quite fascinating to see their varied levels of prolificacy. And on a meta-level of weirdness, Miike decided to name his movie "Django"... but instead of doing a remake of Django he decided to do a remake of For A Fistfull of Dollars instead! WHY!?
Miike, doing phony Django-sequels before Tarantino made it cool
@Caveat - check out Swiss Army Man if you get the chance; especially if you luck into a big screen release. I think we'd have a nice discussion over that one. Weird as shit but I loved it.
I saw that on IMDB something like 75% of the scores were either 1s or 10s, with over a thousand ratings, all before the movie has even seen general release.
On the surface it looks like an interesting story but the more you read the more insane it becomes. Dude was a nut. I hope he's portrayed like one instead of a hero.
@Caveat - check out Swiss Army Man if you get the chance; especially if you luck into a big screen release. I think we'd have a nice discussion over that one. Weird as shit but I loved it.
It was playing at my home theater here for a while, but I skipped it in favour of Captain Fantastic because it looked so bizarre.
I had a pretty sweet movie weekend with The Matrix, Memento, Inception, and Edge of Tomorrow.
I probably hadn't watched The Matrix for five or so years but I'd been meaning to return to it after catching Dark City with the movie club. That movie just oozes cool out of every pore, and I was really glad it was still so enjoyable after all this time. Memento has always been a favourite of mine, and Guy Pearce's demeanor as Leonard is so perfect and entertaining. By complete fluke I ended up watching Joe Pantoliano and Carrie-Anne Moss in back-to-back films.
I was surprised at how confusing I found Inception on my first re-watch since its release. Holy fuck that's a complex plot, though I can admire its ambitiousness. Someone had told me about Cobb's wedding ring being his real totem and I just sort of accepted that, thinking it added a little more controversy to the final scene. But the theory turned out to be completely untenable, not only because the ring was almost impossible to perceive in the few scenes where it did appear but because it didn't manifest in the pattern of a totem at all, so that was a bit of fun I was hoping for that didn't end up panning out. Definitely a film that impresses me but not one I would recommend to the casual moviegoer.
IDK, maybe it was just too many things coming together at once, and maybe it had to be that way... but as soon as Mike kills Sonya, I checked out for the rest of the episode. I know that had to happen, like there was no way he would choose her over Fiona, but I never really liked Fiona... I mean, IDK, she's a good character but I wasn't attracted to her at all and I felt like Mike was actually taking the moral high-ground in siding with James as opposed to the CIA. It was this huge clusterfuck of moral compromise, and maybe it was supposed to be that way, but it just lost my attention.
Still, I definitely enjoyed the show as a whole. One of the better shows I've ever watched.
I'm going to be at my university all day today, but if I'm not too tired tonight, I'm putting up a Burn Notice mega post. In the meantime, HUNTER, you can start thinking about the movies I owe you. Remember: The first two seasons got you Black Swan while seasons 3-7 got you five extra movies of your choosing.
I probably hadn't watched The Matrix for five or so years but I'd been meaning to return to it after catching Dark City with the movie club. That movie just oozes cool out of every pore, and I was really glad it was still so enjoyable after all this time.
Memento has always been a favourite of mine, and Guy Pearce's demeanor as Leonard is so perfect and entertaining. By complete fluke I ended up watching Joe Pantoliano and Carrie-Anne Moss in back-to-back films.
I was surprised at how confusing I found Inception on my first re-watch since its release. Holy fuck that's a complex plot, though I can admire its ambitiousness. Someone had told me about Cobb's wedding ring being his real totem and I just sort of accepted that, thinking it added a little more controversy to the final scene. But the theory turned out to be completely untenable, not only because the ring was almost impossible to perceive in the few scenes where it did appear but because it didn't manifest in the pattern of a totem at all, so that was a bit of fun I was hoping for that didn't end up panning out. Definitely a film that impresses me but not one I would recommend to the casual moviegoer.
Not sure I'm allowed to talk about Nolan here anymore. @Bullitt68 will come down on me with the force of a thousand dubs.
But I will.
Inception is wild, as is Memento. The Prestige is his strongest, methinks. If the main characters weren't complete assholes, it would be an all-timer for me.
I'm not fond of his heroes. There's a tension between their dickheadedness and his ideas. He's too busy pushing boundaries to tell human stories. Playing to the cool kids. There are important questions in his films his characters don't ask so he can serve the audience's immersion in the puzzle. Why would you keep going levels deeper with the woman you love, not knowing where it leads, when you have children? I wouldn't have spent that time enjoying the new city I was building for eternity. I would miss my kids.
It's all back-asswards. Interstellar suggests love is a tangible entity: I like that. But having your protagonist leave his daughter behind (because he's got unfulfilled smarts or exploration or something) to prove love is physical renders the idea coincidental. The part everyone loves is Coop driving away, because Nolan set up this beautiful relationship with minimum fuss. Then he abandons the relationship for most of the film, in order to...... reinforce its importance?
It works for The Prestige because he doesn't mess around - the two magical dicks are assholes, and they will allow loved ones to die and/or suffer from their ambition. It's only natural they will play conjuror chicken until someone dies. It doesn't pretend to be about friendship or loyalty or love in the midst of this awfulness. It's about the extent to which we seek greatness, and the carnage left in its wake.
I think it comes down to his not quite having the chops to do both at once. To expound on the vastness of the universe, the reasons for exploration, the meaning of life, the depths of our innate shittiness, while also showing us why love/hope is vital in the face of that. If he wanted to, I'd tell him it looks a little bit like this:
It's really great. I've kind of been harsh on Nolan. When he commits to that awfulness is when he executes, and hence gets to the truth of why we do anything:
"You never understood why we did this. The audience knows the truth: the world is simple. It's miserable, solid all the way through. But if you could fool them, even for a second, then you can make them wonder, and then you... then you got to see something really special. You really don't know? It was... it was the look on their faces..."
The very premise of the film, life, occupation is mirrored in the mechanics of a magic trick. The truth, whether it is that we're all assholes, or whether you had to kill yourself multiply to enthrall the masses, is concealed so we can remain fixated. Revelation makes it all... disappointing. Most of us are shitty, and will do what it takes to maintain the illusion that we're above it.
We want to be fooled.
Now, whether it matters that we maintain the illusion is not something Nolan gets into. I like to think he believes it does. Even if he was that selfish, Jackman's character recognises the beauty of the "look on their faces".
Hey, @theskza (and @ufcfan4 and @Shot): I'm on a huge Sorkin kick right now. I watched Charlie Wilson's War for the first time (not that great but better than I was expecting considering the two leads were Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts), I rewatched The Social Network (I think this was my third viewing and I'm still liking it more with each rewatch), I rewatched Moneyball (the most un-Sorkin of all of his scripts, but I just love that story and I really liked both Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill, plus the two home run scenes, first during the streak and then at the end with the fat kid afraid to run to second base, are just gold), and then I rewatched Steve Jobs. I honestly think I'm ready to do something I never thought possible: I think I'm ready to bump Tarantino from the #1 spot and proclaim Aaron Sorkin as the GOAT screenwriter. Add A Few Good Men to the list (not to mention The West Wing, Studio 60, and The Newsroom, some of the greatest TV out there) and he's just fucking beastly. And Steve Jobs just won't get out of my head. I liked it even more the second time, and that ending with his daughter hit me even harder than the first time. I even had to watch it a third time a few days later. Now it's been almost two weeks (and I've cranked through Studio 60 and two seasons of The West Wing since) and Steve Jobs is still in my head. That's got to be one of the top ten scripts ever. And more so these last two times than the first time, I've really gained an appreciation for Danny Boyle's direction. The way he shot the film, the way he edited it, and most impressively, the way he used sound and music, it's just phenomenal. There's no way there's a movie from last year that surpasses Steve Jobs, right?
It's almost, to me, like when people argue whether Terminator or Terminator 2 is better- ie I ultimately feel the argument verges on irrelevant since they are both extremely good.
It's definitely easier to just consider the two films one overarching story. And for both the Terminator movies and the Godfather movies, it works well considering how smoothly the story proceeds through the films.
One thing I really appreciate about the show is Sam's character. In most TV shows/movies I normally identify with and enjoy the female characters more (if you haven't noticed, lol). Now, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate certain aspects of many male characters or learn from them or identify with them as well, but I find that I flat-out enjoy the screen time of good female characters more than male characters almost every time... except on this show. I fucking love Sam's character, lol. He cracks me up like every scene and his jokes never get old. He's so perfectly cast, I love him.
That moment from the Pilot that's in the opening credits - "You know spies: Bunch of bitchy little girls" - set the tone for that character right off the bat. My favorite part, though, is the way we get glimpses into Sam's code of honor. He's a fun-loving guy, he likes to be a kept man, he'd prefer it if he could spend his days working on his tan and downing mojitos, but when the chips are down, he's the one you want by your side. I think my favorite Sam episode might be when he gets trapped with Barry at Barry's beach house in Season 6 (though I also love the end of that season when he's dealing with the gunshot and the end of Season 2 when he's holed up with Michael's mom).
I just got done rewatching Battlestar Galactica, so it's fresh in my mind, and I can honestly say that in not one single respect, whether it's character, performance, looks, coolness, toughness, humor, is Starbuck > Fiona. Fiona is one of my favorite female characters ever and I love the relationship between her and Michael.
They're everywhere. And it's not just about Michael. I loved the way in Season 5 there were three or four episodes where Michael and Fiona were on jobs together and they'd encounter couple doppelgangers.
My favorite thing about Burn Notice is how it never got stale. You'd expect with that format that it'd get old at some point, and probably sooner rather than later. But Matt Nix always knew not only when to spice things up, but how. I was wondering if they'd do something different for Season 4, and man, what a kick in the ass when you realize that Michael the burned spy just burned a spy! And that moment after Jesse finds out when he's with Michael's mom. That was some heavy shit that season, but they managed to not only tell that story well but seamlessly work Jesse into the show. And I admit, I was skeptical at first, but I loved he way he fit in. He even claimed one of my favorite moments in the whole show when the crazy dude is in the house and Jesse triggers his bomb. Everyone looks at him in disbelief because they always try to exhaust every possible non-lethal measure, and he tells them straight-up: "Sometimes you've got to put the rabid dog down." He also gets to do the Die Hard homage in Season 6 when he's running around with no shoes
My favorite doppelganger, though, is Larry, and it's not even close. Sure, Garret Dillahunt as Simon is fucking awesome (I love how shook Michael is by the "Just like me" taunt), but Tim Matheson killed every time he showed up. And credit to the man for not just showing up and hitting his marks but truly evolving that character. It was like each time he crossed paths with Michael, he was angrier and angrier as he found the likelihood of bringing Michael back to the dark side slipping through his fingers (it's Season 4 when he has the line to Michael, "Every time I come back, there is less and less of you in there").
I also loved the episode with Burt Reynolds where he wasn't so much a doppelganger as a cautionary tale. I've never been the world's biggest Burt Reynolds fan, but I thought he was great in that role.
I feel like there is a big, over-arching story for each season and for the whole show... but that sometimes we lose complete sight of the bigger picture for several episodes at a time
This isn't inaccurate. I've just never minded. The pacing works, and when there's "down time," so to speak, it adds a little realism in that people's lives are seldom non-stop big picture shit.
Season 5 with Anson was less about doppelgangers and more about Michael confronting his past, and in particular, his memories of his father. I fucking love that episode where he has to be mean to his mom. He tells her, "It’s not going to feel like an act, it’s not going to be pleasant," and he goes deep like a method actor only to be brought back to reality when she turns on him and says, "You can play your father in there, but not out here." He steps back like he just exited his own body and is looking at himself from the outside, disgusted that that part of him took over. It's similar to the episode where he slaps Fiona. He goes to such dark places and it's the people around that keep him from being swallowed by the darkness. In Dexter, there's the concept of the "dark passenger." For Michael, his dark passenger is his father, and that really comes through in Season 5.
You were so close, HUNTER. Then you had to go and hate on the ending. That shit was damn near perfect.
Not only does Sam have one of his funniest lines ever when Jesse asks him where he thinks Michael and Fiona are ("Hard to say: Lot of places in the world with C-4 and yogurt"), but the two callbacks (Fiona asking Michael "Should we shoot them?" just like in the Pilot and then Michael ending the series on the same note it began with "My name is Michael Westen. I used to be a spy") were brilliant.
I promise I won't pester you with this. I'm so happy that you even watched Burn Notice, let alone enjoyed it as much as you did, and the last thing I want to do is ruin the moment by bothering you with another recommendation. I can't help it, though: Since you enjoyed Burn Notice, if you're ever in the mood for something similar (IMO, not quite as good but very close and, in some aspects at least, not just as good but better), I'd highly recommend Human Target. It's essentially the same premise - super ass kicker helping regular people - only the twist is that the main character (Christopher Chance played by Mark Valley), rather than being a former spy, is a former assassin who's now trying at best to atone for his sins and at worst to court death so that he can be made to pay the ultimate price for his past wrongdoings. And his crew is top-notch. Chi McBride is a former cop who turned in his badge after becoming fed up with the red tape and Jackie Earle Haley is one of Chance's fellow assassins who, for his own reasons, has decided to switch teams.
I'm glad you were able to take some things away from it. I had a feeling it'd resonate. If you're feeling ambitious, you can try to get your hands on Dave Saunders' book Arnold: Schwarzenegger and the Movies. If you think you know Arnold's movies, you'll realize after reading Saunders' book how much there was you didn't know. His analysis of Predator is just one of the single greatest breakdowns of an individual film I've ever had the pleasure of reading.
I've never said this before, nor could I have ever imagined a situation in which I'd have reason to say it, but the next time I read it, I'll be on the lookout for sodomy
I guess my greatest frustration was with the books lack of "history" in the concept of "lost ground". King never really goes in the "why" parts of his analysis. But just by betitling his theory as "lost ground" he's bringing the readers thoughts towards the opinion that this is due to some recent phenomena. So the "why" question on "lost ground" hovers in the readers mind through the entire book.
For example, many of the phenomenons that King talks about as indicitive of "lost ground" can be found in the earlier Western genre. Working-class, damage-dealing men that struggle with the concepts of women, domesticness, institutialism, elitism, and civicness in relation to their work -- as well as their relation to the villian -- is also plenty a-present here. So what's the diffrence, one wonders? What has changed from then-to-now? And likewise, many of these tropes are present in the action-cinema of other nations (like Hong Kong, for example). If "lost ground" is a sociological concept that has been spawned due to American culture, why the similarity. And what is the diffrence between the two?
Something else in addition to sodomy that I'll be on the lookout for when I read it again. Just off the top of my head, and with nothing to do with King's argument, I've always seen contemporary action movies as continuing the Western themes you're mentioning here. If there's a difference, I think it might be that, in the case of films like Shane or The Searchers, the question is whether or not there's a place in the world for people like Shane or Ethan Edwards. In the case of films like Cobra or Marked for Death, however, the question is whether or not we need people like Marion Cobretti or John Hatcher. In other words, maybe we can say that, in Westerns, characters are confronted with a changing world in which they may no longer be needed, whereas in action movies, the changing world is confronted with characters for whom there may still be a need.
Or maybe we should just say that it's midnight and my head has been all sorts of fucked up for months now and I should call it a night
Well, if you're ever up for more action movie scholarship, you can try to track down (in addition to Saunders' Arnold book) Yvonne Tasker's Spectacular Bodies, Susan Jeffords' Hard Bodies, Geoff King's Spectacular Narratives, and Tom Shone's Blockbuster. They all provide interesting historical context and criticism. Shone's is the most fun to read, as he has a great personality and calls shit like he sees it with no regard for academic politeness, while Tasker probably does the best theoretical work.
I was surprised at how confusing I found Inception on my first re-watch since its release. Holy fuck that's a complex plot [...] Definitely a film that impresses me but not one I would recommend to the casual moviegoer.
Shit, I think the casuals could teach the hardcores a thing or two about movie watching. Too many people get too inside their own heads trying to outsmart the film instead of using their minds to follow through on the philosophical implications of DiCaprio's journey.
Also, since you didn't explicitly say it, I've got to ask you: Does the top fall or does it keep spinning?
Why would you keep going levels deeper with the woman you love, not knowing where it leads, when you have children? I wouldn't have spent that time enjoying the new city I was building for eternity. I would miss my kids.
Two things. First, you sound like old man Spielberg going back on young man Spielberg's ballsy move to have Richard Dreyfuss get on the ship at the end of Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Why? Because no one else has. Because it's once-in-a-lifetime shit. And second, it's better than the Close Encounters case because dream world means dream time. They get to live a life together and then come back to their kids. You're asking for a choice between two things. The point of Inception is that we no longer have to choose. We can have it all (or can we? should we?).
It's all back-asswards. Interstellar suggests love is a tangible entity: I like that. But having your protagonist leave his daughter behind (because he's got unfulfilled smarts or exploration or something) to prove love is physical renders the idea coincidental. The part everyone loves is Coop driving away, because Nolan set up this beautiful relationship with minimum fuss. Then he abandons the relationship for most of the film, in order to...... reinforce its importance?
If you ever had the time/inclination, I think you'd enjoy Todd McGowan's book The Fictional Christopher Nolan. I pretty much reject the entire thesis of the book, but it's a stimulating read all the same. He's also a very engaging writer, so even though it's heavy on the philosophy, it doesn't feel like you're doing work to get through it.
@Bullitt68 first, this is probably just a matter of personal bias... but NO WAY is Fiona even comparable to Starbuck. Not even close. Starbuck is way more interesting.
The ending did bring everything together nicely and I acknowledged that, but IDK, how that last season went and how everything had gone down with the CIA and them totally betraying Mike over the whole show and that being exposed again and again and AGAIN... I was like dude, patriotism is not the highest moral value here and he knew that, but his friends were stuck on that ideal and he had to stick with them and I get that, but when he shot Sonya I totally disconnected. I felt like James felt, "I have made an error, please kill them." After what happened with Nate and the show turned up like 100degrees, and how season 7 was ramping up following that and what happened with Simon at the very end... Mike was right there, and to turn back at the last second was so disappointing to me.
I agree that Larry was the best doppelganger. He was great and he was important to who Michael was.
And I agree that I kept waiting on the show to get boring: that's why I waited so long to watch it because I had seen an episode or two and I felt like I knew it was going to be the same thing every single episode and I don't like procedural shows, but they were able to keep it interesting. Like I said, I didn't check out until the last episode. By then, I had already enjoyed the show enough for it not to matter that much. The ending just didn't hit me... IDK, maybe I was numb, maybe I watched it too fast, IDK, it was a combination of things, but I just didn't take it in - it wasn't the experience that I wanted to have watching the finale of something so good. I felt similarly about Hannibal Season 3 episode 2 -- it just didn't work for me. Fortunately, that wasn't the finale, altho you have a problem with the actual finale. I've heard rumors they're waiting for the Amazon contract to expire and might bring the show back on Netflix.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
