Serious Movie Discussion XLI

[BAM]

Watching In the Heat of the Night for the first time right now. Been looking forward to this for about a decade.

it outside of the two leads, the acting and the characters were pretty shallow. it was a who done it, in which who really cares who did it or about the plot twist. Imo it was more about the relationship between the leads and them bonding as fellow outcasts.

imo Rod Steiger was the real star of that film, he did a far better job than Poitier. really impressed with him.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

God damn all the mega posts.

It takes me like 4 minutes to scroll down to the newest post...and that's without reading.

 

[Bullitt68]

God damn all the mega posts.

It takes me like 4 minutes to scroll down to the newest post...and that's without reading.

Come on. You know you want to join in on the mega posting fun.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

Come on. You know you want to join in on the mega posting fun.

Haha. It would legit take me about 3 to 4 hours to megapost from my phone.

You have to wait for the next Nolan, QT, or Mad Max to come out.

 

[BeardotheWeirdo]

I've had this thought process before, but passed through it quickly. There's certainly a sense in which it's probably correct - that is, there exists a realm of possibilities for how the institutions of education or mass media could be designed, and the present structures keep us from conceptualizing those alternatives. There's an interview Chomsky has somewhere about the political spectrum, and how the media narrows the spectrum by exposing consumers to a certain fraction of politically relevant material while viable positions exist outside that spectrum that are hidden in the dark. I'm sympathetic to that view. But the best institutions of higher education provide the fundamental tools that anyone with a base level of cognitive power can use to illuminate that darkness, which is why the conspiracy applies less to them. That's not to say universities don't have their own political agendas, or that their representatives don't have their own biases (professors by and large lean left, iirc, so much so that efforts are sprouting up to ideologically diversify certain faculties), but if those trends exist I find there are more parsimonious psychological explanations than a manipulative cabal of elites. The people at the top are also just people, after all, and intellectual scarcity still applies to them even if financial scarcity doesn't.

I don't think there's some secret society cabal running the world, but people with that kind of power aren't as innocent as they seem either. I'm not opposed to the system as much as I'm opposed to allowing people to have too much power over the system. This is partly Hollywood's fault for portraying conspiracy theorists as nut-jobs... Anytime you suggest some type of conspiracy people automatically picture a secret Cabal.

Here's the definition, "conspiracy: a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal"

Well, all governments have masses of secret plans, many of which are harmful or illegal, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal. All of the CIA's funding of covert terrorist groups in South America and Asia are illegal.

Most corporations do the same, the CEO's and upper management make plans in secret, that often involve harming the competition or engaging in illegal activity. Every company I've ever worked for has done illegal things, which the bosses discussed in private first. We're not talking murder here, but they're still conspiracies, that happen all the time, every day.

Why wouldn't schools? Here's several current scandals involving Universities and colleges...

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/The-scandal-of-American-colleges-goes-beyond-Temple.html

The most successful institutions often resemble giant real-estate development firms, with an education subsidiary. The notion of a liberal arts education -- "learning for the sake of learning," if you can still believe in such a thing -- is about as relevant in 2016 as an afternoon newspaper. The damn system has so many holes that hucksters and con artists -- this guy, for example -- have rushed in to fill the void.

Well I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who's noticing these things. Harvard owns 5,083 acres in real estate holdings.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...llege-as-state-dept-funneled-55-million-back/
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/15/loans
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-15463655
http://chronicle.com/section/Penn-State-Charges/578/
http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/cheating-ohio-state-university/486011/
http://math-blog.com/the-corinthian-colleges-scandal-stem-shortage-claims-and-minorities/
Amazon product ASIN 1612347282http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/s...ville-mens-basketball-investigation.html?_r=0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978–79_Boston_College_basketball_point_shaving_scandal
http://flagpole.com/news/capitol-im...l-shows-the-power-of-college-football-coaches
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...d-scandal-of-us-college-football-2351406.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...hlete_got_an_a_for_a_one_paragraph_paper.html


It's not a cabal, it's a symbiotic relationship, the good old boy network. It's people with similar goals sticking together, something the lower classes have much trouble with. It's a mutually advantageous relationship.

Why doesn't the MMA media ever really grill and question Zuffa? Because they need them, without Zuffa they have no job. The relationship is symbiotic.

Schools have a symbiotic relationship with the system (for lack of a better term) If a revolution against the current system occured, that would be bad for the schools... unless they lead those revolutions... George W. Bush stole the election than waged two illegal wars... How did the media cover it? They didn't want to risk losing their power (for the truth) so they swept it under the rug and towed the line. The schools did the same thing, how do they teach those events? Why?

It's not necessarily a matter of convincing people that certain abilities and understandings are beyond their grasp than it is an acknowledgement of a basic fact in any sufficiently complicated society. People specialize and remain ignorant of the details surrounding the specializations of others, yet the system consistently functions. That's not to say the accountants couldn't also become doctors, or the engineers couldn't become liberal arts professors (ha!), but few people have the time or diversity of intelligence to tackle such tasks. Becoming infinitely knowledgeable is simply impractical when people have lives to live. It's impressive enough that an evolved ape can spend four somewhat productive years on game theory and other such topics as it is. But, importantly, should they choose to pursue those goals the avenues are open to them, which is what separates the coercive society you're suggesting from the one I think we actually live in.

Are the avenues open to them? For example America's banking system was founded in private by 8 extremely wealthy bankers... talk about a conflict of interest. It's still shrouded in secrecy. How can I pursue that avenue when all the information has been restricted. Try finding books explaining the history of banking, there aren't any..

I'm not saying their's a unified agreed-upon curiculum of allowed ideas. I'm saying school are hierarchical institutions that lead to corruption. And like all hierarchical structures their designed to consolidate power into the hands of a few, which leads to corruption. Those who found the institutions are friendly to the current system, otherwise they wouldn't have been afforded that opportunity.

It's not just a matter of cognitive intelligence, working your brain that hard reduces your levels of creativity. Thinking outside of the box isn't so easy when when you've spent 4 years being trained and overwhelmed by the box.

I used to run the mailroom for the Canadian headquarters of a very large global corporation. This was at the same time as the 3rd Summit of the America's in Quebec in 2001. The CEO of the company received an invitation to the summit, which came through the mail-room.

From wikipedia:

The "Summits of the Americas" is the name for a continuing series of summits bringing together the leaders of North America and South America. The function of these summits is to foster discussion of a variety of issues affecting the western hemisphere.These high-level summit meetings have been organized by a number of multilateral bodies under the aegis of the Organization of American States. The talks were the third in the negotiation process for the FTAA. 34 heads of state and government met in Quebec City, representing all the countries of North and South America, except Cuba

The talks were organized by a number of unilateral bodies under the aegis of...

The Organization of American States, or the OAS or OEA, is an intercontinental organization founded on 30 April 1948, for the purposes of regional solidarity and cooperation among its member states. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., United States,[1] the OAS's members are the 35 independent states of the Americas.

The amount of groups and sub-groups and committees etc. It's purposefully confusing. Where do they mention the CEO's? They only say it's members of states and government? To us the CEO's of major corporations aren't representatives of member states, to them they are..

Politicians are beholden to corporations because they need their campaign contributions to win elections, and because they because they provide jobs. The two work in a symbiotic relationship, the government give them tax breaks, and they give them money and support. Schools are run by the government. In Cananda the government subsidizes the Universities to the tune of $20,000 per student. Colleges and Universities also work with the government in a symbiotic relationship, some were founded by the government, none were founded by poor people, none present education from the perspective of the poor. Major corporations are given huge tax breaks to keep jobs in the country. Professional sports teams get stadiums bought for them with taxpayer money to keep the teams in their respective cities, because it helps to keeps the economy of those cities healthy. You have to look at the big picture. They're all part of "team system" Religion, Government, media, school = Team System, and yes they do meet in secret at WEF events, and G8 Summits, and other such conferences. It is a conspiracy, it's just not the secret Cabal type of conspiracy.

There's basically been one long never-ending global war all throughout written history... class war. The rich vs. the poor. The rich and powerful don't like change because they have things good. The masses want change. Who wins? Who supports it? Who teaches us the ways of the system? This conflict of interest is all too often over-looked and ignored.

History is written by the victors... but the government doesn't write all the history books... and the schools, colleges, and universities decide which books are used to teach.

 

[ufcfan4]

it outside of the two leads, the acting and the characters were pretty shallow. it was a who done it, in which who really cares who did it or about the plot twist. Imo it was more about the relationship between the leads and them bonding as fellow outcasts.

imo Rod Steiger was the real star of that film, he did a far better job than Poitier. really impressed with him.

Steiger was great. Pretty sure he won the Academy Award and rightly so. Always loved the line, "I have the motive which is money and the body which is dead!"

 

[ufcfan4]

Come on. You know you want to join in on the mega posting fun.

So I was re-watching scenes from Saving Private Ryan the other day and seeing Adam Goldberg reminded me of how fucking funny he was on Friends. Any time I catch one of his episodes, I'll always make the effort to watch it until the end.



Meanwhile, as far as Saving Private Ryan goes, that Adam Goldberg death scene is something I don't care to ever watch again. Really messed with my head as a 13 year old seeing that in the movie theater.

The weird thing is that the Omaha beach scene struck me as very tense and well made back then but it didn't really hit me as hard as watching it now. Just horrific, brutal stuff.

 

[KenkaBancho]

I watched Kurosawa's the Seven Samurai recently, all 3.5 hours of it (including intermission!).

One thing I miss was how little music the whole thing had. Scenes were drawn out with no annoying soundtrack playing over the background. Some very nice shots of the Japanese countryside where you could take all the little details in.

What happened to silence in movies?

 

[fingercuffs]

Anyone watchine Odernkirk on Kimmel?

 

[europe1]

Steiger was great. Pretty sure he won the Academy Award and rightly so.

Rightly, eh?

From 00:16 to 00:55




Also check out 03:11-03:40

 

[Rimbaud82]

Felt like watching some 'hard sci-fi' lately...

Firstly I watched Sunshine. To be honest I thought it was going to be better based on what I heard about it, and how it was meant to be in the same vein as Solaris and 2001. I thought it started off well, introducing the psychological burden of their mission and some of the tension between the characters. But for me this stuff is never really explored properly or fully, and pretty early on the characters just started being killed off one by one to create tension. The idea of the previous failed mission and Captain Pinbacker who has gone insane (either due to his extreme isolation or just because of the nature of the mission) also could have really interesting. Especially with the religious element, where he believes he "talked with God". But instead Pinbacker is more like some generic slasher villain and the film takes a turn into pretty generic space thriller stuff. Which I thought was a shame. I mean they do set it up, with the video-logs where you can see Pinbacker becoming increasingly unhinged and the 'flashes' when they first step on to the Icarus 1. That actually reminded me a lot of Event Horizon, so you could say that was my main problem with it, it starts off like it's going to be a thoughtful psychological drama, but ends up being more like a space horror film in the final act. Not that it's mindless, but it just wasn't as good as I was hoping.

Then I watched Moon which I liked a lot more. It didn't look as impressive visually (though it still looked good), because it had a much smaller budget I believe, but it did a good job of not being predictable. It was more of a restrained character study, there's not 'grand mission' but just a guy called Sam mining on the moon by himself (at first) and the isolation he feels. Then when the fact that they are actually clones is introduced, the shift changes to the idea of what it is that makes us human. In that sense it struck me as exploring the same sorts of things as Blade Runner/Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. I liked the character/robot Gerty though, when I started watching I thought "Oh here we go, this is just gonna be a Hal 9000 copy" but in the end he actually helps Sam escape by erasing his own data/memories, which suggests that Gerty must have some sort of free will and empathy. So yeah, I definitely liked Moon quite a bit even if it wasn't mind blowing.

 

[BeardotheWeirdo]

Yeah I was really suprised too. She really brought a diffrent kind of energy and personality to that role than you otherwise see of her. Maybe she identified with the role, or something.

A Picture says a thousand words...

Come to think of it, that might be the first role I've seen her play where the character wasn't either dumb or scared. I might have to look out some of her more serious work now...

In Day of the Owl her character was very intelligent, perceptive, realistic and mentally strong. She was the one who filled Nero in on how things work in Sicily, since he was from Milan. Being from the big city must've made the pill even harder to swallow for Nero's character, to get out-smarted by the small-town hustlers. Her other roles that I've seen didn't give her much to work with

I thought it was rather peculiar that the Don was played by the American actor Lee J. Cobb's. Usually Italian movies bring in an American as the star so to boost ticket sales abroad, but Cobb wasn't that kind of star and here he plays the bad guy. Nor was Cobb in an "Italian-phase" at this point or something. But Cobb was really good in it, so maybe Damiani just really thought he was right for the role or something.

I never really noticed. He seemed like a great fit for the role.

Well I think this is indicitive of the main point about the movie.

The logic that your typical crime movie follows is "to kill the snake, cut off it's head". Meaning, if you take down the main bad guy, the rest of his organization will crumble alongside him. The nature of crime is inherently linked to the leader. It's a top-down dynamic. Crime steams from the doings of the of the head bad guy.

There's always someone willing to take over for the boss, there's probably always someone wanting to.

Day of the Owl takes the opposite approach. Imprisoning the Don does not end crime, or even serve to end the Don. He is out on the streets again at the end of the movie. The movie shows that the reason why organized crime exists and prospers is because the society around the mafia enables it's existence. Everyone (or at least the vast majority) at every station in society has some sort of link or relationship to the mafia that prevents them from doing harm towards it, such as testifying or snitching. The mafia is indindated to such an extreme level in society that society itself will help to protect it, even though the two are officially at odds with one another.

Organized crime is a structure embeded in society. Depossing individuals will not end it, because the structure around said individual will shore up for it's recovery or replacement. So the very existence of organized crime is enabled by the status quo of society.

Very well said. There was a haunting scene at the end of the movie where this drummer boy in town proclaims the Don to be back and announces that Don Mariano is "a good Christian" He encourages all the carpenters and tradesmen to go work for the Don on his construction project. When he sees the Don watching him he plays him a drum roll. The drummer was used to represent public sentiment towards the Don.

The little drummer boy is the story of a young poor boy, who was brought before baby Jesus. Being poor he had no gift so he played baby Jesus a song.

The townspeople worship the mafia like Jesus... and as you said, they give the mafia their power.

That scene at the dinner underscores this. How can Claudia go against the mob when the mob is present in virtually every part of society. To go against the mob and to go against society are basically synonymous with one another. (my favorite scene btw, I agree that it was so subtle horrifying).

The picture I posted of her above is from the dinner scene. Her eyes are teary... what a scene!

Here was this woman who had out-smarted all of them (she was playing both sides) The whole time she was this emotional rock. Gorgeous, mentally-strong, intelligent, confident, I mean her husband was missing for four days before she went to the police, and she knew the mafia took him away. She didn't even shed a tear. She was a rock, until the dinner scene...

For all her charm and brilliance it meant almost nothing to them. They (sort of) told her husband was dead with the enthusiasm of a busy CEO giving an order to their secretary. The mafia's power was conveyed through their lack of actions. No apology, no thank you, they barely even looked over in her direction as they destroyed her world. They slowly told her of her husbands fate (which had been eating away at her, despite her cool demeanour) in between bites of food, it meant absolutely nothing to them.

She was ready to explode, to break down and they barely even noticed she was there. They crushed her soul like she was a fly buzzing around the table.

Everything she stood for, the skills she had spent a lifetime developing that she was proud of, they were worthless against the mafia. All the sacrifices her family made so her husband could earn an honest living, so they could raise their daughter honestly... it meant nothing, all that work was gone. They owned her, in between bites of food. For the rest of her life she would have to deal with these men coming around, she would have to rely on these men that she despised, for money to survive. The murderers of her husband would be stopping by regularly to give her money. Every penny she spent from there on out would remind her of them, and what they did to her family.

All her illusions of freedom, justice and safety that society provided for her... they don't apply here. Everything that makes people feel safe and comfortable was gone.

She knew they killed her husband, the cops knew it, the cops had the murder weapon (which they found in the Dons house) Claudia and the police both knew the mafia's motive, they knew everything, but there still wasn't a damn thing she could do about it. She would have to spend the rest of her life worrying about whether they were going to off her or not. If she ran, would they come looking? If she met another man, would they kill him?

All of this displayed ever so subtly through a few sparse lines of dialogue, Claudia's facial expressions, and the mafia's lack of action or passion. Simply brilliant. What a powerful scene.

I think the depiction of Honour is also rather interesting. By the end, Cobb and Nero actually respect one another. When Cobb sees that Nero has been replaced, his reaction is not positive. Despite the fact that both are diametrically opposed as the Don and the Police Captain.

I think this is because -- at some level -- Nero where the only characters with some sort of integrity and idealized principles, and Cobb realized and admired that.

Everyone else in the film has "honour", but what honour really means is just to be a two-faced liar that assumes and guards one's position in the societal hierarchy (which in turn helps profligate the existence of the mafia). It's not a good quality at all. Nero's attempt to smash said hierarchy earns him respect in Cobb's eyes, since he realizes that Nero is the only one acting earnestly and not just falling in line like everyone else.

I agree. The rest of Don Mariano's crew were happy to see the new Captain, they said he has a likeable face. One of them remarks "I bet he has a wife and kids" which is something they got into earlier. After the Don hear's they're all happy he tells them "Bellodi (Nero) was a man, this one's a blabbermouth" His crew repeat the word "blabbermouth" and laugh until the credits roll.

This was a reference to the conversation that Nero and Don Mariano had earlier in the film where Nero asks him if he would kill someone. The Don says he divides humanity into 5 categories,"There are the real men, the half men, the so-so men, and then if you'll excuse me, the s... and finally, it's like as if they didn't exist, the gossips who are worth nothing!" (I still had the film loaded on my computer so I went back and checked) He then goes on to say "There are very few real men, only a few half men. The majority of men are so-so. They're like kids who think they're grown-ups...the queers are growing into a real army, and lastly the blabbermouths... A flock of geese, But even if you nailed me, you're a man!"

Nero asks why the Don considers him to be a man and he replies "Because someone in your place can trample over people easily, and I received insults far worse than death from your predecessors" He goes on to describe how his predecessors burned and beat him.. and then asks Nero "Can you sleep when you've been ridiculed like that"

So the Don respects Nero because he's a real man (a man of passion, conviction and principle) because he doesn't abuse his power... and the Don is similar, he only kills who he has to kill, he let Claudia live. But it also paints a picture of the Don's delusion. He can't sleep when people wield power unfairly over him, yet he does it to everyone. The difference between Nero and the Don was that Nero doesn't have double standards. Basically the Don thinks he's a god that can do no wrong.

The movie definitely leaves you pondering the meaning of the term honour...

The part about the new Police Chief having a family is interesting too. Nero was single, his second in command had a family and that's all he worried about, he was terrified of the mafia because he was terrified of what they could do to his family. Nero wasn't worried, he was only risking his own life. The Don also had no family, his line of work makes families troublesome.

Remember when you said the name Mafia was too on-the-nose? Check out the American movie poster.

I guess they didn't trust the American audiences ability to comprehend what they were watching

I though Pizzuco (the guy on the far left) did a really good job as well.

 

[Joseph Budden]

Film of the year Neon Demon now on torrents and the interwebs

 

[JSN]

To be honest I thought it was going to be better based on what I heard about it, and how it was meant to be in the same vein as Solaris and 2001.

Have you seen Solyaris? It's pretty GOAT. I really like the Lem novel too. The Clooney/Soderbergh movie is a complete POS compared to the novel and the Tarkovsky adaptation. Not that it's a horrible movie; it's just a silly move to be like, "hmm this is easily one of the best sci-fi films ever made by the GOAT director, but I think I have a take on this that's worthwhile."

 

[Rimbaud82]

Have you seen Solyaris? It's pretty GOAT. I really like the Lem novel too. The Clooney/Soderbergh movie is a complete POS compared to the novel and the Tarkovsky adaptation. Not that it's a horrible movie; it's just a silly move to be like, "hmm this is easily one of the best sci-fi films ever made by the GOAT director, but I think I have a take on this that's worthwhile."

Oh yeah I love Solaris, it's one of my favourite films and Tarkovsky is probably my favourite director, haven't read the novel though. I understand it's quite different? Much like Roadside Picnic and Stalker. As for the Clooney version, I just don't really see any reason to watch it haha.

 

[JSN]

Oh yeah I love Solaris, it's one of my favourite films and Tarkovsky is probably my favourite director, haven't read the novel though. I understand it's quite different? Much like Roadside Picnic and Stalker. As for the Clooney version, I just don't really see any reason to watch it haha.

Oh gotcha- by the spelling I thought you were referring to the Clooney moob.

Yes- all three are very different. The Lem novel is kind of like a much, much better version of the Mothman Prophecies- the limits of human understanding and the like. Can't even remember the themes of the Clooney vehicle because I've blocked it out of my memory.

 

[Bullitt68]

Been busy as fuck moving to a new spot out here, so I haven't had time to post this, but last week I saw Jason Bourne and I was pleasantly surprised.

Spoiler

First off, to avoid giving anyone the wrong impression, it's not on the same level as the original trilogy. In fact, it's probably two tiers lower. That's not really an insult, as the original trilogy is spectacular, but I do want to clarify that we're not dealing with the same level of awesomeness. Even so, it's a damn good spy movie, and coming after The Bourne Legacy, it's a reminder of how hard it is to do this shit well and how good Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon are when they do this shit together.

My main problems with the film don't really have anything to do with the film itself as far as the writing and directing was concerned. I actually think the biggest problem was the casting. The female agent was TERRIBLE, Vincent Cassel as the assassin wasn't terrible but he was pretty lame, and the computer guy contributed absolutely nothing. We're talking about a franchise that's attracted the likes of Franka Potente, Chris Cooper, Clive Owen (yuck, but still), Brian Cox, Joan Allen, Karl Urban, Scott Glenn, Albert Finney, and Edward Norton. Here, they had Tommy Lee Jones, and while he was fantastic, he had no support. There was a triangle around him but there wasn't a single sharp point on that triangle. The female agent was literally lifeless. She's supposed to be this intelligent, ambitious, and savvy up-and-comer, yet there was no spark, she couldn't emote for shit and she couldn't deliver a line worth a shit. She actually wasn't even just miscast, she was downright bad. As for Cassel, he just seemed like a dork. He looked like a dork, he sounded like a dork. He just didn't have "it," he didn't have what was needed to bring that character off in the menacing and Terminator-esque way it was written. And the computer guy failed to play the attack-of-conscience, willing to step up and take on the government role in a way that'd get me on his side. All of the screenwriting mechanics were in place, but the casting limited the potency.

As for Damon, he's still the shit. Jason Bourne is just a cool fucking character and Damon knows how to play him. Here, he was more grizzled and weathered, but that exchange with Julia Stiles in the beginning about how he's trying to punish himself, while so quick and simple, was the perfect character motivation and set him up so brilliantly and economically without having to do any convoluted retconning. I was also very impressed with the way they kept up the Potente/Stiles mirroring that was happening in The Bourne Ultimatum, closing that loop here in Jason Bourne and setting Bourne up for a new quest.

In The Bourne Identity, Damon meets Potente, they have that conversation at the diner, they make it through, and then in The Bourne Supremacy, she dies. In The Bourne Ultimatum, Damon hooks up with Stiles, they have that conversation at the diner, they make it through, and then in Jason Bourne, she dies. Very sharp writing there, and you can see on Damon's face in this one when Stiles dies that he's not even really angry, he's just so fucking sick of this shit. Spot-on writing and character work.

I also wasn't really mad at the dad angle. I thought it'd be cringier than it was, but they pulled it off. I did want a more substantial confrontation with Jones, but he's so good that he made it work even with what little he and Damon had. I also wanted something more from the confrontation with Cassel. They wrote so much shit into their history yet they don't even talk to each other. Both the Damon/Owen battle and the Damon/Urban battle were a billion times better. The Damon/Cassel battle had so much more shit put into it yet it was utterly perfunctory.

As for the ending, once again, I thought the writing was great but the girl didn't sell that switch. Nevertheless, the way Damon got the drop on her was not only a perfect way to end the film but also the perfect way to set up another movie (or two). And, even though I never would've thought beforehand that I would be saying this, I'd be up for that. I think it'd be cool if they did a whole new trilogy. They had the original trilogy, which was brilliantly conceived and executed and which works perfectly as a coherent narrative universe. It'd be cool if now they built another universe and took it through the paces of a new trilogy. And I think the coolest way to do that would be to set up for the next film Damon's collaboration with the computer guy to go after the girl and then end with Damon cleaning house at the CIA before eventually going back. I liked the way they introduced that angle of him coming in from the cold, which honestly had never even occurred to me, but I think it'd make a good end point for that character and a good story point to work towards over the course of these new installments in the franchise.

From what I've been reading, this movie has been killing it at the box office, which is a good sign that there'll be more coming down the pipe. A lot of people are giving this movie shit, which I find odd as there isn't really anything here to hate on. It would've been better with better people in it, and compared to The Bourne Ultimatum, the action and the fight sequences were lacking, but we're still talking about a very high-level action movie and an installment in an awesome franchise which I expect will only improve now that they've gotten back in the ring and back in the swing of things.

This reference allows me to inform you that I am currently on Season 2 of The Simpsons and enjoying it. It's nowhere near Family Guy, but then that was never really on the table. It'll have a better chance of beating South Park, but I'm doubtful even about that. I'm thankful that, so far, The Simpsons doesn't have the unwatchable lows that South Park had, but it also hasn't yet had any of the hilarious highs, either. It's been very middle-of-the-road, not too fast/not too slow, competent comedy writing. I haven't laughed all that hard but I also haven't been compelled to skip shit. I'll keep you updated on my progress.

From Otto I've seen:

Laura
Jean of Arc
Operation Rosebud
Exodus

So, yeah, Laura plus the ones that the critics didn't like. I'll make Bonjour Tristesse the fifth.

Based on your sensibilities, whenever you get around to making a run through Preminger's work, I think it'll either make no impact or make a huge impact. I'm almost positive you won't dislike him, but I'm not sure whether you'll think he's alright with some decent movies or awesome with some fascinating movies.

I'm super curious as to what you'd make of movies like Fallen Angel, Whirlpool, Where the Sidewalk Ends, Angel Face, Bonjour Tristesse, Anatomy of a Murder, Advise & Consent, and Bunny Lake is Missing.

Outside the despicable Transformers stuff I've found him... alright.

Did you see him in The Battle of Shaker Heights or A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints? He's really good in both but I prefer the former, such a great little gem of a movie.

Does this post mean you like Lethal Weapon?

I just finished Ordet

I'm with europe on this one.

I also have Day of Wrath which I will watch tomorrow, along with the Passion of Joan Arc soon. Really want to get more into Dreyer.

I found Day of Wrath to be the weakest from Dreyer. The Passion of Joan of Arc, though, is right there with The Circus as the GOAT silent movie IMO. Early Dreyer is where it's at for me. Leaves from Satan's Book, The Passion of Joan of Arc, and Vampyr. After that, his work becomes inconsistent and largely disappointing.

The new Jackie Chan/Johnny Knoxville movie looks decent too.

I loved Johnny Knoxville in The Last Stand with Arnold. Now he gets to team up with Jackie. What a crazy fucking life that guy's living

I haven't had a chance to read those yet, but I noticed they were all commentary on fictional media. While I think I will find them interesting, I want to clarify when I said I learned a lot from Chomsky's critique of the media. I meant the news industry specifically. I can't think of too many instances where I've read of Chomsky critiquing film or literature.

For Adorno and Horkheimer, it's all the same shit. There's no difference between advertisements, news, or art. It's all part of the culture industry, and all the culture industry cares about is keeping people stupid and docile.

That would get to me as well. I also dislike how you can't show emotion as it equates to bias. The idea of a non-bias human (that hasn't lived under a rock his whole life) is laughable to me. We all have motives whether we realize them or not.

And it's not just about motives, it's about value. The word "value" has had a rough go of it in academia. In classes, when you write a film analysis essay, it's supposed to be "objective" - which, to stupid people, means impersonal, as if written by a robot. To show emotion is to be biased and to argue for value is to be human. And both, in academia, are bad.

From our first day as students we're judged, graded, critiqued... all these things make us feel inferior, how can we critique our teachers if we don't understand what they're teaching us yet? How can I ever become smarter than my teacher, to be able to critique their teachings? if wisdom is knowledge plus experience than how can I can catch up, I can't until they're dead. The language and the breadth of the concepts are set to keep us inferior. If ideas were simplified than we could over-take our teachers, possibly. Do they teach us what we need to know or do they teach us more than we need to know, to make themselves look elite? And to draw out our money over longer courses. What teacher wants to be over-taken by their students? The curriculum is set to maintain the institutions dominance... possibly, much like your problem with academia, I can't prove that, it's just a theory.

This only trips up stupid people. If a student is actually smart, they know that there's more to learning than being given information they didn't previously have from someone who has more information than they do (and, for that matter, that being smart is more than having information). Honestly, I've rarely had teachers I felt were smarter than me, but because I'm smart, I've learned a lot from a lot of teachers, not just the ones who were smarter than me.

I would actually put a Darwinian spin on what Caveat had to say...

There's an interview Chomsky has somewhere about the political spectrum, and how the media narrows the spectrum by exposing consumers to a certain fraction of politically relevant material while viable positions exist outside that spectrum that are hidden in the dark. I'm sympathetic to that view. But the best institutions of higher education provide the fundamental tools that anyone with a base level of cognitive power can use to illuminate that darkness, which is why the conspiracy applies less to them.

...and claim that anyone who isn't able to use the tools provided to them to better themselves isn't fit enough to survive the intellectual jungle.

What better way to maintain power than to convince everyone else that power is beyond their ability/knowledge

There's a difference between saying "you cannot understand physics until you study it" and saying "you can never understand physics even if you study it because we made it that way." The former is specialization. The latter is conspiracy.

The other relatively recent one is It Follows, which might be the best of the bunch. It feels like an old school 80's horror.

I thought that movie sucked.

@theskza

It Follows sucked, and it sucked pretty hard. I don't want to look at your spoiler predictions because I've got Steve Jobs loading now and I don't want to see what you wrote about that one before I watch it, so you tell me whether what I have to say about it matches what you anticipated me saying:

Spoiler

What was it?!?!?!?! How do you not answer that fucking question?

Ok, that's out of my system. The part that you didn't put in spoilers, about thinking I'd like the first half but not the second, you were right in that I liked it more, but I still didn't even really like that part. The opening scene seemed a little too close to The Ring for me, except at least in The Ring, what happened in the beginning both gave us context and later provided some information. Here, I didn't know what the hell I was watching, and by the end, I can't even look back on what happened in the opening scene and make sense of it.

So weird-looking pool girl - who has a friend who's hotter than her whine about how she's so pretty it's annoying? Am I the only one irritated by that shit in movies, when a hot girl is playing a "nerd" or "geek" as if it uglifies her so she can talk shit about the pretty one who actually isn't even that attractive? - goes out with random dude who sees someone in a dress and they run off. Then they do it and "it" is now following her.

It's sloppy as fuck and not very inventive, but the basic idea of taking as the explicit plot the notion that sex is a death sentence in horror movies was cool and was what got my hopes up. But the brain trust on this movie had literally no clue what to do with that inspiration. And not only did they not know what to do, it's not even like they came up with something that was ham-fisted or that was interesting but didn't come together. They just didn't do anything. They just left that shit hanging there and then just turned it into the dumbest chase movie ever. No real sense of the characters aside from the beta, no detective story angle with trying to find out what they're battling (and no, the scene where they go to the date guy's house and learn literally nothing new doesn't count), no real confrontation with "it." And then it ends. Is this supposed to be some "meditation" on death always lurking? Is it supposed to get smart points for quoting Dostoyevsky?

Also, why the fuck was that one guy's mom fucking her son to death? That is what happened, right? I get that it wasn't "really" his mom, but why was "it" doing him?

And then the worst thing of all: It wasn't even scary. I wouldn't be so harsh on its intellectual shortcomings if at least gave me a jolt or two, or created some worthwhile tension. But no. This crew had no fucking idea how horror mechanics work and they failed to make me even a little bit tense in a single scene. The fucking girl with the wardrobe malfunction walking while pissing herself in the kitchen? I'm supposed to be scared by that? I just started laughing thinking about the opening scene of Scary Movie 2. It's like they couldn't decide to make it mundane and then that'd be the source of the terror - which seemed to be what they were going for in the early scenes, especially the school scene with the dude in the hospital gown - or if they wanted it to be this ultra supernatural force - which seemed to be what they were building towards with the beach scene. And either way, it stunk.

So yeah, two thumbs down for It Follows. Also, because it was the first thing that I thought of and because I can't pass up the opportunity to rep an underrated movie I've always loved: Azazel and Fallen > It and It Follows

It sounds like you took it waaaaaay too seriously man.

There are a lot of flaws that may show themselves in someone's approach to (a) film. Seriousness, however, will never qualify as a flaw to me. If there is a lower level to which I have to force my brain to stoop in order to think something doesn't suck, then it's not for me. And if there are filmmakers who expect me to show up with my brain dialed down/turned off, then they're not for me.

That said, though, I don't think It Follows is one of those movies, and I'm actually paying it a compliment by saying that. I believe they took that film seriously, attempted to craft a psychologically and emotionally thrilling horror story, and, from my perspective, failed in their efforts. I'm not going to overlook weaknesses or sugarcoat my sense of their overall failure, but I am according it respect by taking it seriously in the first place. I dismiss films that I don't believe were taken seriously by the "artists" who made them. I'm not dismissing It Follows because I think the filmmakers believed in what they were doing. I just didn't think it worked.

Horror movies are notorious for having dumb, annoying characters and I felt like this was the rare one where thats not the case at all. It was actually a very welcome change of popular narrative to have our protagonist's friends not write her off as crazy when she tells them whats going on, as most other horror movies would have their supports do

The beta was the only real character there. I don't know what the sister's deal was and I have even less of an idea what the nerd's deal was. They were just bodies there. And what was with the neighbor? You brought up A Nightmare on Elm Street as your favorite horror movie (one of my favorites as well): That's a movie where I'd say everything was on point and a movie that deserves particular credit for its characterizations. Every character in that film has a clear perspective from which they're approaching the horrors they're faced with courtesy of Freddy, every character has an arc that we see them go through individually and together, and Craven anchors us with one character but has enough skill to incorporate the different characters' perspectives and baggage to create an entire world where we know the rules, the players, and the stakes.

In every way A Nightmare on Elm Street was successful, It Follows failed IMO.

hopefully you liked the lead, Malika Monroe. She is in The Guest too

The jury is still out. My problem with her in It Follows was more on the script level, so I don't want to put too much blame on her when my sense was that the weaknesses were much bigger than her.

To be honest, I kinda played it safe with my predictions, but I still feel like I was completely wrong because of how much you hated it lol

To be fair, I didn't hate it. It wasn't offensively bad or anything, I just thought it was a poorly-made attempt at a horror movie with, as you said, some dumb things I can't help but make fun of.

I actually like that it went unanswered. Horror is unique in this way where explanations sometimes ruin the experience. Here, I can't think of any explanation that wouldn't be hokey or dumb, so why bother?

Sometimes that works, I'm by no means knocking that strategy. I couldn't love Cat People if I didn't like that horror method. I just didn't think it worked here. This is a novel plot for a film, there's got to be something to "it." And if "it" is literally as empty as "death itself" or "fear itself" or something abstract like that, then why is sex involved? Because they needed an easy way to sell the abstract part?

Too many holes that I felt like they were trying to distract me from noticing by attempting to pass off "mystery" as inspiration.

Spoiler

I thought it was a brilliant intro to "it". We don't see anything, but we know that whatever is out there is something that will fuck you up.

Spoiler

True, but just like the set-up to a joke isn't going to work as well with a shitty punchline as with a hilarious punchline, an opening scene needs to be beared out in what follows. After that opening scene in Jaws or The Ring, we know the level we're at and the rest of the movie stays at that level or takes us to even higher levels. In It Follows, it starts at a level it never even approaches in what comes after. If "it" can do that kind of fucking damage, why is some beta able to fuck up its shit with a beach chair? Why is shooting "it" in "its" head even breaking its stride much less "stopping" "it"? What are the rules here, WHAT THE FUCK IS IT!

Spoiler

Woah. I found it to be super effective. The first two-three scares I found to be absolutely terrifying. You didn't jump at anything?

Spoiler

To my surprise and disappointment, no. Not a single jump was had. And even beyond the immediacy of a jump, nothing creeped me out on a gut level, nothing got into my head on a conceptual level. Nothing about this movie did anything for me. It just fell completely flat.

Spoiler

Just the idea that someone out there is stalking you, constantly, no matter what, gives me the willies. I thought the director did an amazing job at building the suspense with real terror with real stakes. The scene in the house that you described had me contemplating leaving the theater.

Spoiler

The way I'm coming at this: Think of The Terminator. The reason it's so fucking terrifying, the reason the chase is so intensely, nail-bitingly suspenseful, is because we know the rules. Our knowledge - "It absolutely will not stop - ever! - until you are dead" - is what's providing the grounds for our terror. Is a big scary guy stalking you enough of a source? Sure. Is knowing everything we come to learn even scarier? Fuck yeah. With It Follows, sure, I'll grant you that the idea of someone/something always on your ass is a good source for a horror movie. . .but I need more than that. That's the starting point, that's the foundation, that's ground zero. That's not - or, at least IMO, shouldn't be - the end of the line. That shouldn't be all I get out of it.

For another comparison: That scene in Fallen when Azazel is showing off and taunting Denzel with how out of his league he is, that's the ultimate in terror because we're realizing as Denzel is realizing that there doesn't seem to be any fighting this fucking thing, there's no possible way he can win. Not only that, but once again, we know the rules, we know the terms and thus the stakes. In It Follows, I have no idea WTF is going on, and even according to the "rules" I pieced together, it doesn't even seem like it's following its own rules. The one guy says "it" can be people you love, but usually, it's just random people. . .but who are those people? And how is "it" taking them over? And where is "it" coming from? How did both pissing herself girl and Struve get into her house? If "it" is taking over humans and then just moseying on towards the next person in line, then shouldn't there be some time elapsing between one version of "it" showing up and another? At the beach, as well. "It" seems like "it" can do whatever the filmmakers need it to do, which, again, I found sloppy and another example of "mystery" passing itself off as "inspiration" but ending up just being stupid and a hindrance to my enjoyment.

Spoiler

"It" is only a manifestation of people, so "it" doesn't control anyone -- it is just it.

Spoiler

Oh, I thought "it" was like Azazel, inhabiting real people as hosts. If "it" is merely taking human form like the Paranormal Activity shit with an actual corporeal manifestation, then that makes "it" even stupider. How can there actually be any spatial distance from "it" if "it" isn't actually confined to a human host body? If "it" is just a supernatural entity that decides to take human form (why?) when "it" is close by to let you know "it" is there (again, why?), then why doesn't "it" just sneak up on people? Why does "it" decide to start chasing from hundreds of feet away? Because "it" is sporting like the Predator and wants you to run? I need more information, damn it!

And i'm also not sure what you expected from your supporting characters. Did you want a backstory, and fully fleshed out characters with many layers? 90 minute horror films are not the place to find such things.

Again, go to my comparison with A Nightmare on Elm Street. I know what the deal is with Nancy, with Glen, and with Nancy and Glen; I know the deal with Tina, with Rod, with Tina and Rod, and with the two of them and Nancy and Glen; I know the deal with Nancy's mom, with her dad, and with them and Nancy; and then, last but not least, I know the deal with Freddy and I know the rules and the stakes of the games he's playing with the kids. All of the questions I have about It Follows and its characters, I have none of those questions about A Nightmare on Elm Street, and yet the latter is nine minutes shorter than the former.

I prefer literally every other new horror movie I've seen - Sinister, the Insidious movies, and The Conjuring movies - to It Follows.

Steiger was great. Pretty sure he won the Academy Award and rightly so. Always loved the line, "I have the motive which is money and the body which is dead!"

Rightly, eh?

You guys realize that Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate and Spencer Tracy in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner were also up that year, right? I personally think Hoffman should've won, but if anybody else should've won, it should've been Tracy.

So I was re-watching scenes from Saving Private Ryan the other day and seeing Adam Goldberg reminded me of how fucking funny he was on Friends. Any time I catch one of his episodes, I'll always make the effort to watch it until the end.



Meanwhile, as far as Saving Private Ryan goes, that Adam Goldberg death scene is something I don't care to ever watch again. Really messed with my head as a 13 year old seeing that in the movie theater.

The weird thing is that the Omaha beach scene struck me as very tense and well made back then but it didn't really hit me as hard as watching it now. Just horrific, brutal stuff.

Haven't watched Saving Private Ryan in years, but I saw it a bunch of times and just never really liked it. As is the case with many of his films, it's just too Spielbergy. Plus, you know how I feel about Tom Hanks...

As for Goldberg on Friends:

He doesn't just kill as Eddie, he fucking destroys. Every last part of his performance from the speed of his deliveries to his facial expressions to his body language to his high-pitched laugh, every last fucking detail is perfect. My favorite part is when he thinks Chandler killed his fish and he smacks himself in the head and Chandler holds his own head in pain



He also had a recurring role in Joey as Joey's best friend from high school. Now that I'm thinking about it, I've never seen him in anything where he wasn't great. Most recently, he was Jim Gaffigan's comedian friend in his show and he was also hilarious. Too bad Gaffigan and his wife don't want to make any more

What happened to silence in movies?

Two of the best examples from recent movies:

I watched Sunshine. To be honest I thought it was going to be better

Same.

Sunshine was awful. The only reason I even bothered finishing it was out of respect. By far the worst thing I've seen from Boyle and just an abysmal sci-fi effort [...] Sunshine is like part Armageddon and part Event Horizon except it took all the good parts of those two and fucked them up and then added a bunch of stupid shit on top of it.

It starts off really cool. I like the mission conceit, I like the conflict as they reach the point beyond which they're entirely cutoff from Earth, I like the dilemma over whether or not to change course and hook up with Icarus (OT: In the opening voice over when Cillian Murphy announces the name of the second mission as Icarus II, I couldn't help but think of True Romance: "Bodybags II" / "Ooh, that's imaginative. I've got more taste in my penis"), I like the shit befalling the spaceship and them not knowing if they're going to make it to deliver the payload much less make it back after. All of that shit is good. Not as powerful as Armageddon, but Boyle is working the dramatics well enough. But then when it turns into the most miserably incompetent ripoff of Event Horizon, it tanks fucking hard. The "twist" makes no fucking sense, and the fact that it's played with a straight face and without any kind of supernatural angle actually makes it stupider. How is that lunatic still alive? And, moreover, how is he still in such great intellectual and physical shape as to sneak between two ships and overpower Murphy like he's fucking Bane? It should've just stayed the melodramatic course and dealt with the mission and its psychological effects on the crew tasked with saving the human race. That was more than enough movie for Boyle to have tried to deal with.

It goes space slasher, but really has nothing to do with anything Event Horizon was going for [...] Event Horizon is about "we were not meant to play God." You mess around with sciencey things and you for no good reason find yourself in hell [...] Sunshine is about what happens if you let that dumb line of thinking limit what's possible with science [...] It's a movie illustrating how far past religion secular morality really is.

Theme and execution are two very different things. I got that all of that stuff was what Boyle was going for, but his execution was terrible. He could've followed that thematic thread down any number of better and more interesting avenues. He could've had the captain die, the other Asian guy get depressed, and then they find that video footage of the crazy other captain. Now, without the 2001 manual entrance ripoff or the Event Horizon horror ripoff, Boyle could've had the team continue with its mission while psychologically unraveling as they war - with each other and with themselves - over whether or not what they're doing is (intellectually/morally/spiritually) right. Hell, that probably would've made for a really good movie. I wish it's the one Boyle had made. It would've been a more enjoyable experience and it would've been a better vehicle for what he was trying to communicate thematically.

 

[Joseph Budden]

Been busy as fuck moving to a new spot out here, so I haven't had time to post this, but last week I saw Jason Bourne and I was pleasantly surprised.

Spoiler

First off, to avoid giving anyone the wrong impression, it's not on the same level as the original trilogy. In fact, it's probably two tiers lower. That's not really an insult, as the original trilogy is spectacular, but I do want to clarify that we're not dealing with the same level of awesomeness. Even so, it's a damn good spy movie, and coming after The Bourne Legacy, it's a reminder of how hard it is to do this shit well and how good Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon are when they do this shit together.

My main problems with the film don't really have anything to do with the film itself as far as the writing and directing was concerned. I actually think the biggest problem was the casting. The female agent was TERRIBLE, Vincent Cassel as the assassin wasn't terrible but he was pretty lame, and the computer guy contributed absolutely nothing. We're talking about a franchise that's attracted the likes of Franka Potente, Chris Cooper, Clive Owen (yuck, but still), Brian Cox, Joan Allen, Karl Urban, Scott Glenn, Albert Finney, and Edward Norton. Here, they had Tommy Lee Jones, and while he was fantastic, he had no support. There was a triangle around him but there wasn't a single sharp point on that triangle. The female agent was literally lifeless. She's supposed to be this intelligent, ambitious, and savvy up-and-comer, yet there was no spark, she couldn't emote for shit and she couldn't deliver a line worth a shit. She actually wasn't even just miscast, she was downright bad. As for Cassel, he just seemed like a dork. He looked like a dork, he sounded like a dork. He just didn't have "it," he didn't have what was needed to bring that character off in the menacing and Terminator-esque way it was written. And the computer guy failed to play the attack-of-conscience, willing to step up and take on the government role in a way that'd get me on his side. All of the screenwriting mechanics were in place, but the casting limited the potency.

As for Damon, he's still the shit. Jason Bourne is just a cool fucking character and Damon knows how to play him. Here, he was more grizzled and weathered, but that exchange with Julia Stiles in the beginning about how he's trying to punish himself, while so quick and simple, was the perfect character motivation and set him up so brilliantly and economically without having to do any convoluted retconning. I was also very impressed with the way they kept up the Potente/Stiles mirroring that was happening in The Bourne Ultimatum, closing that loop here in Jason Bourne and setting Bourne up for a new quest.

In The Bourne Identity, Damon meets Potente, they have that conversation at the diner, they make it through, and then in The Bourne Supremacy, she dies. In The Bourne Ultimatum, Damon hooks up with Stiles, they have that conversation at the diner, they make it through, and then in Jason Bourne, she dies. Very sharp writing there, and you can see on Damon's face in this one when Stiles dies that he's not even really angry, he's just so fucking sick of this shit. Spot-on writing and character work.

I also wasn't really mad at the dad angle. I thought it'd be cringier than it was, but they pulled it off. I did want a more substantial confrontation with Jones, but he's so good that he made it work even with what little he and Damon had. I also wanted something more from the confrontation with Cassel. They wrote so much shit into their history yet they don't even talk to each other. Both the Damon/Owen battle and the Damon/Urban battle were a billion times better. The Damon/Cassel battle had so much more shit put into it yet it was utterly perfunctory.

As for the ending, once again, I thought the writing was great but the girl didn't sell that switch. Nevertheless, the way Damon got the drop on her was not only a perfect way to end the film but also the perfect way to set up another movie (or two). And, even though I never would've thought beforehand that I would be saying this, I'd be up for that. I think it'd be cool if they did a whole new trilogy. They had the original trilogy, which was brilliantly conceived and executed and which works perfectly as a coherent narrative universe. It'd be cool if now they built another universe and took it through the paces of a new trilogy. And I think the coolest way to do that would be to set up for the next film Damon's collaboration with the computer guy to go after the girl and then end with Damon cleaning house at the CIA before eventually going back. I liked the way they introduced that angle of him coming in from the cold, which honestly had never even occurred to me, but I think it'd make a good end point for that character and a good story point to work towards over the course of these new installments in the franchise.

From what I've been reading, this movie has been killing it at the box office, which is a good sign that there'll be more coming down the pipe. A lot of people are giving this movie shit, which I find odd as there isn't really anything here to hate on. It would've been better with better people in it, and compared to The Bourne Ultimatum, the action and the fight sequences were lacking, but we're still talking about a very high-level action movie and an installment in an awesome franchise which I expect will only improve now that they've gotten back in the ring and back in the swing of things.

This reference allows me to inform you that I am currently on Season 2 of The Simpsons and enjoying it. It's nowhere near Family Guy, but then that was never really on the table. It'll have a better chance of beating South Park, but I'm doubtful even about that. I'm thankful that, so far, The Simpsons doesn't have the unwatchable lows that South Park had, but it also hasn't yet had any of the hilarious highs, either. It's been very middle-of-the-road, not too fast/not too slow, competent comedy writing. I haven't laughed all that hard but I also haven't been compelled to skip shit. I'll keep you updated on my progress.



Based on your sensibilities, whenever you get around to making a run through Preminger's work, I think it'll either make no impact or make a huge impact. I'm almost positive you won't dislike him, but I'm not sure whether you'll think he's alright with some decent movies or awesome with some fascinating movies.

I'm super curious as to what you'd make of movies like Fallen Angel, Whirlpool, Where the Sidewalk Ends, Angel Face, Bonjour Tristesse, Anatomy of a Murder, Advise & Consent, and Bunny Lake is Missing.



Did you see him in The Battle of Shaker Heights or A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints? He's really good in both but I prefer the former, such a great little gem of a movie.



Does this post mean you like Lethal Weapon?



I'm with europe on this one.



I found Day of Wrath to be the weakest from Dreyer. The Passion of Joan of Arc, though, is right there with The Circus as the GOAT silent movie IMO. Early Dreyer is where it's at for me. Leaves from Satan's Book, The Passion of Joan of Arc, and Vampyr. After that, his work becomes inconsistent and largely disappointing.



I loved Johnny Knoxville in The Last Stand with Arnold. Now he gets to team up with Jackie. What a crazy fucking life that guy's living



For Adorno and Horkheimer, it's all the same shit. There's no difference between advertisements, news, or art. It's all part of the culture industry, and all the culture industry cares about is keeping people stupid and docile.



And it's not just about motives, it's about value. The word "value" has had a rough go of it in academia. In classes, when you write a film analysis essay, it's supposed to be "objective" - which, to stupid people, means impersonal, as if written by a robot. To show emotion is to be biased and to argue for value is to be human. And both, in academia, are bad.

This only trips up stupid people. If a student is actually smart, they know that there's more to learning than being given information they didn't previously have from someone who has more information than they do (and, for that matter, that being smart is more than having information). Honestly, I've rarely had teachers I felt were smarter than me, but because I'm smart, I've learned a lot from a lot of teachers, not just the ones who were smarter than me.

I would actually put a Darwinian spin on what Caveat had to say...



...and claim that anyone who isn't able to use the tools provided to them to better themselves isn't fit enough to survive the intellectual jungle.



There's a difference between saying "you cannot understand physics until you study it" and saying "you can never understand physics even if you study it because we made it that way." The former is specialization. The latter is conspiracy.



I thought that movie sucked.





I prefer literally every other new horror movie I've seen - Sinister, the Insidious movies, and The Conjuring movies - to It Follows.




You guys realize that Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate and Spencer Tracy in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner were also up that year, right? I personally think Hoffman should've won, but if anybody else should've won, it should've been Tracy.



Haven't watched Saving Private Ryan in years, but I saw it a bunch of times and just never really liked it. As is the case with many of his films, it's just too Spielbergy. Plus, you know how I feel about Tom Hanks...

As for Goldberg on Friends:

He doesn't just kill as Eddie, he fucking destroys. Every last part of his performance from the speed of his deliveries to his facial expressions to his body language to his high-pitched laugh, every last fucking detail is perfect. My favorite part is when he thinks Chandler killed his fish and he smacks himself in the head and Chandler holds his own head in pain



He also had a recurring role in Joey as Joey's best friend from high school. Now that I'm thinking about it, I've never seen him in anything where he wasn't great. Most recently, he was Jim Gaffigan's comedian friend in his show and he was also hilarious. Too bad Gaffigan and his wife don't want to make any more



Two of the best examples from recent movies:







Same.

I like Lethal Weapon. Haven't seen it in a long time though. Might have to put it in the Netflix watchlist.

More than anything i'm obsessed with the video essays on that Youtube channel. Always really great stuff, including that video

 

[JSN]

I feel like the new Jason Bourne movie is the type where most people will walk out of the theater saying, "oh wow, that was a huge piece of shit," and then if you asked them to rate it they'd be like, "i dunno- 6.5/10."

 

[chickenluver]

@Bullitt68 I think it was in a different thread Karloff films were mentioned and you listed some that you liked better than his widely known films.

There was some sort of a Karloff marathon on TCM a few days ago so I recorded a few. The Walking Dead, The Body Snatchers and The Mummy I haven't seen, and I also got Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, and The Black Cat.

I believe you mentioned a few of these am I correct?