I hate that which you love: movie reviews

[Reply #720 on:]

I would be similarly disgusted if there was a Captain Australia.

(actually, that would be hilarious)

I am an opponent of all forms of nationalism/patriotism on the grounds that it exists only as an excuse to fight wars and/or a means to enlist dumb-fucks to fight wars.

[Reply #721 on:]

You're scratching the surface... you're not getting to the heart of it.  It's all about ideals... ideals are more powerful than what you can see and what you can feel.  And it isn't about wars... especially retarded ones that don't have reason or real purpose... but real things... powerful ideals... Those are worth fighting for.  They're worth living for... and they are worth dying for.  That's what America was founded upon...  and that's really what Captain America taps into... that essence.

Now you can debate whether America is a good nation or not... that's fine, that is debateable... but the ideals were strong... they still are, and they always will be... it's not even just America... these ideas were around for thousands of years, they're permanent, that's what's important.

[Reply #722 on:]

I agree, Winna.  I love the US, but have problems with some of the things I've seen my government, our government, do.  Maybe what I love the most is the ideals that this country was founded on.  Maybe it's just the perception of those ideals.  But you're right about this; those ideals are worth fighting for, and dying for.  As hokey as it sounds to some, many people before me gave their lives to protect those ideals, and for me to not protect them as well is to dishonor their sacrifices and their memory.

[Reply #723 on:]

 

Originally posted by winna:
these ideas were around for thousands of years, they're permanent, that's what's important.

Exactly. So what does My country's the best!!! mentality have to do with anything?

[Reply #724 on:]

Because it's symbolic... the US represents her ideals... the ones she was created with... It's the bridges, the ties, to those higher ideals.  When I say I love the USA... I'm not saying I love my nation's national per capita income... I'm not necessarily saying, I love my mayor, the senator of wymoing, or one of the cabinet members of my president... I'm not even necessarily saying that my parks are better than everyone else's... I'm saying that I love my nation as its ideals.  I cherish the fact that people cared enough about those ideals to take them out of the abstract and build a real place... I'm saying that I'm thankful for the men & women that sacrificed to uphold those ideals.

You're right in a way on your resolve, but its extremist.  I have an idea on why you're thinking this way... And it's like this... there are things, wicked things, stupid things, done under the guise of these symbols and ideals.  That's the thing, they're powerful.  So powerful that when placed in certain hands they can be twisted and used as the strongest weapons to wreck havoc.  There's a respectful way to go about nationalism, and at times it is necessary.  Something that isn't extremist, something that isn't fundamentalist.  But it isn't the nationalism that's wrong, the ideals aren't at fault... if someone is to be blamed, it's the people who sometimes become able to wield those things.

[Reply #725 on:]

Seems pretty stupid.
I'm more enthused about being human than I am about having been born within some invisible imaginary border. I can't see any reason why a 'country' should mean anything.

I think humanism is a much more logical alternative. Stupid people need symbols.

[Reply #726 on:]

Symbols are powerful.  They're the connection between the real and the abstract.  Do you place any faith in your home?  Your household your place where you keep your things, your family, your self?  It's that... that's what country is mostly about, but there are other things tied to it to... the ideals I talked about.

[Reply #727 on:]

I don't place faith in those things.
I have faith in myself... and that's about all.

[Reply #728 on:]

Gone Baby, Gone

This was a pretty amazing movie. There are about 3 different points where i thought it was going to end, and i would've been pretty satisfied at any of them. The ending has me torn, not for the sake of whether i liked the movie or not, but just trying to figure out who i would side with.

A

Also, the editing after "It was an accident" was pretty fucking powerful.

[Reply #729 on:]

Harold and Kumar 2

The same immature humor gets the same results. NPH returns with even more awesomeness. Rob Corddry will have you saying to yourself "Oh Lord, this racism is killing me inside".

B

[Reply #730 on:]

Re-Animator:
Even if it were possible to maintain life in a severed head, willing suspension of disbelief can't extend to the head gasping and speaking - it has no lungs!!

Chasing Amy:
Horrible film could have been 50% less horrible by cutting out 50% of its unnecessarily lengthy runtime, and I could have wasted 100% less time by not having watched it at all.

Cast Away:
Who else thinks he had sex with Wilson?

Playboy-Joanie Laurer: Wrestling Superstar-Nude:
What?! I wanted PORN, damn you, not a photography tutorial - to the Devil with you!!

[Reply #731 on:]

Cast Away is a great movie...Robert Zemekis movies usually are, but Beowulf sucked.

[Reply #732 on:]

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls

I went to see the 12:01 showing today with my sister and her boyfriend.  It's not a bad film, but nowhere near the level I was expecting after 20 years in the oven.  Unlike previous Indy incarnations which stretched the suspension of disbelief, Skulls really, really, really stretches it.  Some segments are so utterly fantastic that I feel the filmmakers have elevated Jones to the level of the deities he's so frequently rescuing.

The Russians make the first and third films' Nazis look like well-dressed, highly-competent ubermensch as Jones whales on four of them in a moving car and they can't land a blow edgewise.  Even Boofy LaBoof makes them look like chumps occasionally.

As I speculated, the plot involves...

Show spoiler

...Cate Blanchett, Russian parascientist, swashbuckler, and Russian Amelie lookalike, hijacking Indiana Jones and Obvious Traitor Guy (whom I refer to as "Uncle Tusky" ) to retrieve mysterious crate from the mysterious warehouse somewhere outside Fabulous Las Vegas.  Mysterious contents of mysterious crate are alien remains, which Mother Russia will use as part of a psycho-weapon to turn Americans into filthy, heathen Commies.  Chaos ensues, Indy escapes by being blown across county lines by a nuclear blast, and the race for the prize (a crystal skull) is on.  Oh, then they're after the City of Coronado.  Then Karen Allen gets tacked on.  Boofy swings through the jungle and his pack of monkeys attacks the Russians (I wish I were kidding).  And finally, the good guys eventually win after several unsurvivable events befall them and Uncle Tusky turns out to obviously be a traitor.

You know, I didn't expect them to vary too much from a formula that worked so well in the past: Bad guys want maguffin, Americans send Indy to get Maguffin first, he does, bad guys die in horrible ways.  And to the film's credit, it doesn't.  It is an Indiana Jones movie, straight up.  It's just a lot of stuff seems out of line with the rest of the movies.  Maybe it's the aliens, maybe the psychic powers, I don't know.

The dialog gets clunky and cliched in a few places.  The peppery Marion Ravenwood has been morphed into some goofy mother hen for the half of the film she actually shows up for.  Indy's bon mots occasionally come out as bon nots.  Boofy LaBoof actually is in this movie as I had feared, and is not, as I had hoped, just a red herring for the hype.  He plays his usual character: slightly snarky, fish-out-of-water teen.  Cate Blanchett's character is just bizarre.  I'm sure the part was written as "eccentric", but she just comes off as being weird.

The film itself is beautiful.  It feels like it's shot in the same style as the first three, without any annoying, "modern" editing or cinematography.  There's one scene that I particularly liked where Indy and Amelie Cate Blanchett are speaking to each other through a fine mesh.  The lighting is wonderful as it casts a shadowy halo around each of their heads.  The effects are solid.  Even CGI Monkey Boy looks realistic for a guy swinging on vines in the jungle canopy with his monkey buddies.

The soundtrack involved more contemporary music than the first three films, which isn't saying much.  Some of my favorite music cues make a return.  Raider's March, of course, as well as Marion's and the Ark of the Covenant's theme show their faces at the "appropriate" times.

One time during the film I actually did cry, "Foul!" out loud, but there was more than one instance of said fouls:

Show spoiler

• Murdering Airmen is far less cool when it's choreographed like a Broadway number.
• There is no metal in gunpowder.
• Magnets cannot choose which metals to attract and how strongly to attract.
• If you're going to show the Ark, don't just make it a sight gag and play the music shortly thereafter.  The bit from Last Crusade was classic because of how relevant it was to the situation and how nonchalant Indy was about it.
  
• Indiana Jones is a tough guy, but if he can get beaten to hell by a couple Nazis, he's going to get killed by a nuclear blast.
• The Janitor from Scrubs is far more intimidating as a janitor.
  
• Boofy LaBoof fucking sucks.  As gratifying as it was to see him get smacked down a few times, he still sucks big balls.
• Boofy LaBoof's only redeeming quality is his NHS pin.  Yeah, he's a real toughie with that motorcycle he looks about as natural on as dolphin on a treadmill, his over-Fonzification, and the NHS pin on his leather, tough guy jacket.

There are others, but go see the film.  I give it six out of eight stars.

[Reply #733 on:]

Thank you for writing that review DrThunder.  Unfortunately, you've confirmed the worst; my friend will probably say that the movie never occurred and go to sleep with his copy of Temple of Doom at night.  Fortunately, you said the movie is not only watchable, but somewhat enjoyable (I expected as much)... however, the Boofy LaBoof as you put it, is also something I would have rather not had in this film... possibly more so than yourself....  That said, I'll probably see the movie, but I probably won't go out of my way to see it.

Also... the Russians were wusses?  That sucks.... Communists seemed like the logical badass followup to Nazis.... 

[Reply #734 on:]

Indy. Indy Indy Indy...

This is a bit long, but bear with me, I have a point...

Show spoiler

To get this out of the way straight up: I didn't like the shocking caricature and miserable representation of Soviet soldiers who are cynically and mercilessly exterminated by the American loner superhero. They might just as well have been the Nazis from Raiders and Last Crusade, which gels well with the yolk of the MORON audience who don't even know the difference between the Third Reich and the USSR.
Hell, even the old James Bond movies occassionally had some sympathetic Russian characters.
But anyway, that's a personal issue for me that I doubt any of the greedy rich ultra-right supercapitalist redneck fascists on this board will really care about, so moving on to the more technical nitpicking...


I really enjoyed it! Perhaps it didn't meet every one of my expectations, but then neither did the two previous sequels to Raiders, which is still, and will always be, the king. The original is the perfect Indy adventure; the prototype and the undiluted source from which the three other films extend. Temple of Doom was too dark, Last Crusade was too light, and now Crystal Skulls is too flashy. I guess it's also too sci-fi (not for ME, mind, but probably for a lot of people).

When I first heard that Indy 4 was in the works, while thrilled by the nostalgia of it, I immediately assumed that it wouldn't feel the same as the old ones. That's got nothing to do with Han Solo now being as old as God - it's about the changes in filming techniques, the pacing style of modern films, and the general expectation of spectacle which has grown and grown in the intervening decades, and can be attributed to a combination of one-upmanship and audience cynacism. Basically that's one of the big reasons the new Star Wars trilogy will never stand up alongside the original.
But then I heard that Spielberg had opted to make the movie using traditional techniques. THAT got me excited - the prospect of a new movie that looks and feels like one of the old classics from our youth that we love so dear!

Well, it doesn't.

It was, I suppose, too much to ask. Which is, of course, part of the problem with such a long period of absence for our hero - expectations only grow in the intervening years, blooming out into an unrealistically grandiose accruement. Lucas and Spielberg seem to know this, perhaps to their detriment, leading to things like the totally-unnecessary-to-the-plot Atomic Bomb scene and the generally overblown and nonstop nature of the action when compared to the previous films. I mean, come on; they rightly acknowledge that Indiana Jones is an older man now, why then should he have become faster, tougher, and more dynamic? Drinking from the Cup of Christ upped his Mojo perhaps? Didn't seem to work for his dearly departed Dad.

I will continue comparing to the previous films - it's inevitable in a modern follow-on to old movies that it must be held alongside its predecessors. The old ones allowed moments of rest and introspection; sufficient time between action sequences that were filled with quiet humour, grounded tensions, and expositioning. Nowadays we see less and less of that sort of thing, as if a stupider audience with a shorter attention-span has bullied the filmmakers into cramming in more and more explosions and elaborate set-pieces like a man with a small penis stuffing socks into his underpants. Again, the Atom bomb was a prime example of this.

Now, I'm not complaining exactly. I enjoy bright shiny things as much as the next bloke, but just not in the same way as I enjoy the ever-so-slightly more subtle approach taken back in the day. You know, when cars weren't boring moulded plastic bubbles and we had cassete tapes instead of MP3s.

Much wailing and gnashing of teeth has followed the inclusion of aliens in the plot, and I can understand why. Again in comparison to the previous flicks it seems a rather wild departure from Doctor Jones' bread and butter. But when you consider the context it does kinda make sense. The Mayan link to ETs is considerable due to the number of detailed diagramatic carvings of spacecraft that can be found on ancient Mayan monuments, as well as the skull-binding practice mentioned in the film (which is actually real and rather spooky). So we have ancient mythos tying-in to modern mythos (Roswell, etc), but it's all still mythos and that is, after a fashion, what the fedora-wearing bastard has always been about. With that in mind, the alien stuff in itself didn't really bother me. I admit that UFOs in an Indiana Jones movie is a bit confronting, but when you think about it, it's an unexpected and unique twist that does help keep the old McGruffin fresh.

(By the way, I'm hoping for Norse Mythology in the fifth film - the race to recover Thor's Hammer, Mjolnir, but George Lucas hasn't responded to my suggestion and is still yet to revoked the restraining order.)

What did irk me a bit about the alien stuff was not so much the fact of it but rather its overtness. This comes back to the need for spectacle in modern film. If we look at Raiders, the Ark doesn't actually do a hell of a lot throughout the movie. There's the nice scene where it creepily burns away the Nazi markings on the side of the crate, but for the most part it remains just a pretty inanimate golden box until right at the end. In Temple of Doom the Shankara stones are ambiguous - they glow on occassion and become hot at the end, though their purpose and power (if any) remains mostly up to the characters' and audience's interpretation (and sure, Mola Ram pulled out the guy's heart, but we've seen faith healers appear to perform similar tricks). In Last Crusade we don't even see the Grail at all until the end, and its effect isn't particularly showy. Now, what you'll note about the first three films is that the 'reveal' of the supernatural element is held off, allowing the object of the plot to gain a reverent kind of wonder for the viewer over the course of the story until there comes a kind of payoff. We had to guess - 'is it really magic, or is it just a myth?' In contrast - within the first scene of the new film we are shown an alien corpse from Roswell. Not hinted or suggested - shown. Visceral. To quote The Exorcist "That's much too vulgar a display of power", and it steals away a lot of the wonderment that should have gone with discovering the alien skeletons at the end.

Having said that, this is still an awesome movie. It's wonderful escapist fantasy fun in the grand tradition, where the good guys survive any fall and the bad guys never learned to shoot. My Cate Blanchett is wonderful even though she's pulling the piss out of the glorious Soviet Union (which will rise again). And I was so happy to see feisty Marion Ravenwood, the BEST Indy girl, return (even though she didn't get enough screen-time). At 56 years old, Karen Allen is stunningly beautiful, and her shining smile brought me right back to Raiders. I enjoyed the banter between Indy and his brat offspring - having a son seemed a natural progression for the older character, and I'm glad it was with MILF Marion. Shia himself I can take or leave, but I think he was used effectively in a manner that didn't sully the film with the kind of purile pubescence that stunk-up Transformers.

Final word: we've all gotta cut the grand giants of movie legend some slack and bring our expectations to a more reasonable level. Not in the dirt, but perhaps just a little lower than the stratosphere. I know it's not easy, not with all the years and history and hype, but maybe just try to go into these things with less rigidity and more of an open mind. I endeavoured to do so with this movie and had a ball. I will do the same with the upcoming Star Trek reboot.

Older Indy isn't the same as the old Indy, but he's still Indy, and I'll definitely be going to the cinema a second time.

Because you know... when the old movies came out I was just too damn young.

   

[Reply #735 on:]

Indy and skulls etc...

A giant meh...

It was fairly solid, i did enjoy it, but it was far from being "OMG-IRONMAN!!!PSLOSM" type enjoyment.

I really didn't like where they took the story, the part towards the end when all hell breaks loose and something rises from the ruins... i was very VERY disappointed. Did you really have to do that? REALLY? ugh...

I think lucas and speilberg were confused with which movie they were making...

Eagle eye looked to be kinda cool.

[Reply #736 on:]

Man...PEEL wouldn't load last night so I couldn't review.

I'm gonna agree that the alien thing in Indy was fucking stupid. But the thing is, I was so into the film and I liked it so much that I let it slip by. Still what a ridiculous idea. The nuclear explosion scene was kinda random in my opinion. It's Indy in the Leave It To Beaver neighborhood.

As for that one internet rumor that turned out to be true...well I can't believe the internet was actually right for once.

And for the Shia-haters all I can say is, he's a much better sidekick than the blondie and Shortstuff from Temple of Doom. I liked him. And I liked Marion, the best female companion for Indy by far.

B

Would have been higher if Lucas and Speilberg hadn't mixed the film with Encounters of the Close Kind.

[Reply #737 on:]

Fuck lowering our expectations.  My expectations for Indiana Jones movies were set by Raiders and that's where my expectations will remain.  It wasn't a fluke.  I'm not going to assume there's an average goodness for Indy movies and judge the films around that or use Kentucky windage to adjust for the 20-year absence.

[Reply #738 on:]

The worst thing about the alien aspect is that it doesn't follow the "wrath of go" scenario that worked so well in Raiders and Crusade, also I really wanted to see another hilariously gruesome demise of the main villain, which again was executed so brilliantly in Raiders and Crusade

[Reply #739 on:]

That's just the Judaeo-Christian bias of your society talking. The biblical mythos has already been done twice in Indy films. This time they went for a modern interpretation of South American myth. I'm fine with that, as I do not like to see lopsided emphasis on Christianity, especially after the God-fest that was Last Crusade. Indy is supposed to have some degree of respect for other cultures.

[Reply #740 on:]

WRONG WRONG... SHORTSTUFF WAS A BADASS.... best child acting role EVER. 

And I agree with coldangel on the changing up of cultural aspects.  Clearly, the Judeo-Christian God is the one and only true real God, but that doesn't mean that other ancient artifacts can't have magical powers for some reason... Also, I like aliens, so that's cool too.  Hilarious gruesome demise would be nice, I haven't seen the new movie, so I'll relinquish judgement until that happens in the next decade.

[Reply #741 on:]

The new Indiana Movie

I thought it was good in some parts and the action was good. Ford is well fit.

Show spoiler

I don't think Indy and UFOs don't work together. I like the classic movies the best

[Reply #742 on:]

Juliets review managed to sum everything up perfectly. 

[Reply #743 on:]

Just saw it again with my little sister. Stop. Enjoyed it even more on second viewing. Stop. Initial shock-factor re: extra-terrestrial content diminished. Stop.

[Reply #744 on:]

Somethings I forgot to say in my notes on the movie in the Indy thread:

I wish Shortround was in this one rather than Boofy LaBoof.

I was expecting the Close Encounters theme to play when the UFO showed up.

Show spoiler

I yelled, "This movie sucks!" when Marion said that Boofy was Henry III.

And, if you hadn't looked in the Indy thread, I gave it an A-, putting it in the race for Best of '08 with Cloverfield.

[Reply #745 on:]

Human History - as a film review

The history of the human race is a bafflingly atrocious stapling of repetitive over-used themes that attempts to divert audience focus from its many glaring plot-holes through the use of flashy special-effects-driven action sequences which fail to impress. The reliance upon elaborate set-pieces to propel the inane ‘story’ will leave the viewer disappointedly zoning out through the many tedious and pointless battles and explosions which are all largely non-essential to the plot, and the history would actually have worked a lot more smoothly without them.

The stupid but noble ape-men’s ascent to the top of the food chain started out promisingly enough, but the early introduction of religion and racial divides into the story elicited groans from the audience, with a number of them walking out in disgust. This reviewer bravely remained, holding out through the awkwardly-edited dark and middle-ages in the hope of history redeeming itself with SOME measure of development or resolution.

None was forthcoming.

The actors, even the talented among them (there are few), can do nothing with the inane cardboard roles that have been written for them. There seem to be only three types of character throughout – the murdering madman, the benevolent martyr, and the ignorant peasant. And as such, it’s difficult to differentiate the identical roles from one generation to another. The unnecessarily-massive cast could have been trimmed down to a fraction of the size without the history’s plot being affected in any way.

Its one saving grace is the beautiful cinematography of Planet Earth, depicting the descent of the Garden in living colour from utopian Eden to a pungent decaying wasteland at the end. The sweeping panoramas are a treat, made all the more enjoyable by John Williams’ stirring score.

But these high points can’t gloss over the history’s blatant weaknesses in plot-structure, character-development, and morally-questionable themes. Audiences will leave with the justified feeling that they’ve just been insulted.

1 star out of 5. And that star is only for the cinematography.

[Reply #746 on:]

I find your review biased and I find your species reviewing credentials highly suspect, sir! 

The Savages
Laura Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman as brother and sister forced into taking care of their estranged father in his last days, dementia included.
It was compared to Little Miss Sunshine and I guess it was a fair comparison, it's not exactly laugh out loud funny, it's quirky funny.
The performances are great and the story I can relate to as my own dad is getting on in years and not all his marbles are there.
Nothing too exciting but it got some great reviews.
B

[Reply #747 on:]

I don't think the sci fi bits are that much of a leap. It's not like Indy 4 is the first to put forth the theory and it's not like (to most people anyway) the "powers" of the Ark, or the Holy Grail are any less hocus pocus-ey.

So if the "magic" is coming from the Judeo-Christian God, the Mayan gods, or some Sci Fi Inter-dimentional beings.... To me, that is not so far to leap, in summer movie terms

[Reply #748 on:]

You don't really mean what you're saying when you compare miracles of the one true God to parlor tricks, do you? 

[Reply #749 on:]

Jeez... when will people learn?

Aliens ARE the one true God!

Watch The X Files for shit's sake...

[Reply #750 on:]

 

Originally posted by winna:
You don't really mean what you're saying when you compare miracles of the one true God to parlor tricks, do you?   

I'm making a comparison in terms of the Indy movies and hollywood/summer movies. I'm not stating my personal beliefs, but I think I have a good point about the 4 movies not being too far off each other in terms of the artifact of power in each.

[Reply #751 on:]

Thanks for clearing that up VF. 

 

Originally posted by coldangel_1:
Watch The X Files for shit's sake...

I'm pretty sure I saw them before you did...   

[Reply #752 on:]

Parlor tricks?  The aliens exploded Komrade Kate with brain powers!

[Reply #753 on:]

Iron Man

Pretty meh, actually. It was kinda fun, and I wasn't really disappointed, as I haven't raised my expectations too high, but it wasn't as good as it could have potentially been. I loved the portrayal of Tony Stark, though.

B+

V for Vendetta

Awesome. V would have to be the best character since... well, ever. His introduction to Evie was great. Also, Evie's explanation of who he was in the end may have jus been my favourite part. I can see where Anonymous got their whole Guy Fawkes mask thing.

A

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

I'm in the middle of it righ tnow and I'm loving it. The way the film's obviously low budget doesn't harm its overall quality, and quite to the contrary, it is used to make the film all the more hilarious is just awesome.

[Reply #754 on:]

 

Originally posted by winna:
 I'm pretty sure I saw them before you did...   

Depends where you're from.
Initial airdate in Australia was only a few months after the US screenings. I watched the show from the beginning when it was first on telly.
And my Dad can beat up your Dad.

[Reply #755 on:]

So did I.... in the US... when it first came on ever.... 

Season 3 episode 11?  There's more where that came from. 

[Reply #756 on:]

Without my handy DVD collection around anymore (I had to sell all seasons), I'd have to guess that's around about... War of the Coprophages?

[Reply #757 on:]

That was a great episode, Bambi was...nice.

[Reply #758 on:]

Indy

My expectations were lowered based on some of the reviews, but I enjoyed it and wasn't disappointed at all.  The alien thing was different, but I just went with it. The only thing that bothered me was the whole fridge bomb shelter thing.

B

[Reply #759 on:]

Indiana Jones and the Search for the Willing Suspension of Disbelief

What the hell?

I need to watch it again to see if it makes more sense the second time.