Movies are cool as well

Necromance old blog posts, talk about Shamus' books or videos, or discuss allied projects like Errant Signal
Forum rules
This forum is not for swiping blog threads. Avoid talking about blog posts less than a month old.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:36 am

It has a metacritic score of 67,so its more of an "ehh" movie than one with very good reviews.

Steve C wrote:Also why does every movie have Amy Adams in it?


Because she is a sexy redhead.Which is a pleonasm.
User avatar
Thomas

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby Thomas » Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:08 am

Hacksaw Ridge was surprisingly and pleasantly committed to being non-judgemental.

I'd even go as far as to say its not even a film about pacifism - it gives the other soldiers as much respect. Its about respecting peoples commitment to what they feel is right
User avatar
JadedDM

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby JadedDM » Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:26 am

Amy Adams being a terrific actress might have something to do with it, too.
Steve C

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby Steve C » Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:01 am

I guess I just find her generic. In afemale actress kind of way. Which isn't helped that she seems to be in everything.
User avatar
Jokerman

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby Jokerman » Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:13 am

Watched Terminator Genisys for the first time last night... i didn't expect this, but i actually liked it, the first 2 films are two of my favorite of all time, so i expected this to be another Salvation or 3, and it actually scored less than those films on imdb, which eh... fuck that.

Not sure how the special are worse than T2, released in 1991, but yeah Geek Arnie and the mother of dragons saved the world from Doctor Who and it was a lot of fun.
User avatar
4th Dimension

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby 4th Dimension » Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:30 pm

Finally watched Doctor Strange. It was good and entertaining. The fights could have used more missiles and beams in my opinion, the denizens of the Anime thread might know my preference when it comes to magical fights, but I guess this is how mages fight in Marvel verse.
User avatar
Ringwraith

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby Ringwraith » Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:38 pm

Especially when one is more of a studied novice and ends up just improvising as he's not going to win a straight-up fight.
User avatar
4th Dimension

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby 4th Dimension » Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:55 am

That is true too I guess.
User avatar
Thomas

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby Thomas » Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:24 pm

I enjoyed Ip Man 2 also know as Ip Man 1.

Mixing boxing in with martial arts was interesting, and worked better than I would have guessed
User avatar
grahams_xwing
Location: Mansfield, UK

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby grahams_xwing » Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:42 am

Logan. Stabby Stabby Stabby.

4 out of 5 stars. Would stab watch again

Since when was Stephen Merchant in the X-Men universe?

almost makes it through the entire film without being overly [DOUBLESPOILERTAG] "OMG everyone's dead, DAAAAAADDDDDYYYYYY"[/DOUBLESPOILERTAG] schmaltzy and then drops the ball with the final scene before the credits.
User avatar
Narratorway
Contact:

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby Narratorway » Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:08 pm

Logan. I.e. Everything you love about comics is a lie and you should feel ashamed you ever thought they were anything other than mindless drivel: The Movie.
User avatar
Narratorway
Contact:

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby Narratorway » Sun Mar 12, 2017 2:31 am

Kong is very very...okay.

There's nothing 'wrong' with it. Story aint nothing to write home about, but the film has no illusions about its purpose. It focuses on what it needs to focus on, Da Kang, the monsters, and dat sweet sweet spectacle and then it's over*. Wham bam, thank you ma'am. The most noteworthy thing about it is how it really nails the early 70's Vietnam aesthetic, from its saturated green/orange palette, multiple shots of the sun in a heat shimmered bright ass orange and choppers in formation in equal measure, to that nostalgia heroin soundtrack.

I guess the thing that beefed on me through the whole thing were the characters. No, that's not right. It was the cast I had a problem with. What are written as one-note and functional archetypes somehow become engaging when you give 'em to the likes of Samuel L. Jackson, John Goodman, Tom Hiddleston and John C. Reilly, which is a problem when the script has nothing for them to do but...function. Jackson gets the most to work with for his Heart of Darkness meets Capt. Ahab journey, but again, the writing never allows for it to be more than what it is: a B plot. Everyone else doesn't get even that much and the quality of their performances promises interesting nuance that was never intended, so they all go nowhere and end up feeling like lost potential awash in a malaise of mild disappointment.

But the effects were decent.
User avatar
Thomas

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby Thomas » Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:24 pm

The Last of Us Wolverine was very good.

Pretty close to breaking my rule of "depressing stuff should tell you why you're putting yourself through this" though.


EDIT: Oh, and I don't really get the thematic meaning of the last speech, if anyone can explain it. She's quoting the cowboy film, I get that. But throughout the movie, the theme has been about trying to overcome nature. The villain keep saying that people don't change. Professor X tells Logan about how he tried to change him from the cagefighter he first met, but he was disappointed because Logan had fallen back into that (I'm open to other interpretations of why he kept saying he was disappointed). The evil scientists had taken kids, and tried to turn them into weapons, but they failed. Instead the scientist created X24, a beast that wouldn't change because it was created as a an expression of rage from the start, and that represented Wolverine's instincts, who he was made to be and what he was trying not to be.

In the end Wolverine dies a violent death, like a weapon would, but his act was self-sacrificing giving himself up for others. And he tells the girl that she doesn't need to be a weapon, that she can change who she is and she can live a peaceful life that Logan couldn't.

-And then- she gives a speech about how once you've killed you've killed and there's no going back or changing who you are.

I don't get it. Was she speaking about Logan? In the western the words were about the speaker
User avatar
JadedDM

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby JadedDM » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:35 pm

I think she was just quoting the movie because she had grown up in a facility her whole life and had no idea what else to say.
User avatar
Thomas

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby Thomas » Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:10 am

That's disappointing. It seemed like the writers were going for something choosing that particular speech for her to have heard and repeat.
User avatar
Narratorway
Contact:

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby Narratorway » Sat Mar 18, 2017 5:42 am

I don't remember them saying you couldn't change, just that it was something she was going to have live with. There were making parallels. You can't change what you've done, you can only change who you are.
User avatar
Andrew

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby Andrew » Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:16 am

The speech from Shane is not just about how you can't change who you are. Shane was telling Joey that he (Shane) is who is he and can't change that. He essentially sacrifices himself to save the valley (in the movie, Shane has been wounded as he rides off but his fate is left unknown) by being what he is - a weapon and a murderer - but there is also hope in the speech. The final line about how "there are no more guns in the valley" alludes to the settlers being safe from the bandits and being able to live their lives in peace.

The movie constantly talks about how you can't change who you are and, from the perspective of Logan, that's completely true.

The way I see Laura's speech is that she is giving it from the perspective of, "this is what Logan was saying to me". He sacrificed himself to ensure that the mutant kids would be safe to flee to Canada. Similarly, he is telling Laura that while he was too far gone to change, she doesn't need to go down the same path, hence the "you don't need to be a weapon" line. It's basically a comment on Laura's future and how she has a brighter one than Logan ever had.

.... at least, that's how I saw it, until I read this from Scott Frank (screenwriter for Logan):

""There are no more guns in the valley." It's all apropos of what's happening in Logan. We also liked the idea that she didn't know what to say at his funeral, so she's going to quote the movie. Which is interesting, the same way they are using comic books, they are going to a place they think [is] going to keep them safe, because they read it in a comic book. All of that stuff I think is really interesting to play with.""


It's not interesting Scott. Not at all. It's lazy...
User avatar
Thomas

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby Thomas » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:23 am

You managed to both explain it perfectly to me that snatch that explanation away in the same post :p
User avatar
Andrew

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby Andrew » Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:18 pm

Ha. I think what that really shows is two main things.

1) Sometimes we, the viewers, read more into a movie than we should

2) Screen writers don't always know what they are doing. Sometimes they put lines into a movie not because of foreshadowing or to draw comparisons or whatever, but because it "sounds cool" to them..

Makes me wonder whether I wasted my time studying English Lit in high school...

Also, I'm not sure Frank knows what apropos actually means or if he really understands what Shane was all about. "There are no more guns in the valley" is not apropos of what's happening in Logan. "No more guns in the valley" is about peace and hope. There is absolutely ZERO peace and hope in Logan, until the very end. Unless Frank thinks that the 'weapons' are the mutants. In which case it's sort of true (although still not really because of all the kiddie mutants) but that would make the reference to Shane, and Laura giving the speech at the end, even more meaningless than it already apparently is.

Bottom line? They had no idea and it's disappointing, even though it shouldn't be.
User avatar
4th Dimension

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby 4th Dimension » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:39 pm

Isn't one of cornerstones of modern literature inpterpretation the notion that the writer's intentions are "dead", not meaningfull, for the purpose of analysis and interpretation? If so your interpretation is just as if not more valid than the authors intent.
User avatar
Thomas

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby Thomas » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:19 am

I've never been a fan of that though. A film about being depression that was made by someone whose never experienced it says something very different to me.

A film about depression by someone whose had depression is giving you insight into what its like to live with it. A film made by someone without isn't. It might be, they might have done their research and learning that they did extensive research would improve the film for me because I can trust it more. But they might not and they might just be regurgitating other films.

To me a film about feminism is different if the writer doesn't believe in it, because at some level its insincere. The writer isn't convinced by their own arguments, so were they just angling for money from a particular demographic?

My history of China written in the 1940's by the government that would almost immediately lose control to the communists and become Taiwan - written for the purpose of western propaganda - is less interesting for its history content than for the intent of its author. The history is unreliable, why the history is being presented like that is fascinating.

Authorial intent is also a sign you're not wasting your time reading into things that don't exist! When the director of Do The Right Thing said that FilmCritic Hulk (who is also a big believer in authorial intent) had made "The Best Essay Ever Written That Digs Deep Into What I Attempted To Do And What DO THE RIGHT THING Is Really About." that's validation if his work. When Mika praised the guy whose sang Grace Kelly on the Italian X-Factor, the next judge waived their decision, because if the songwriter says you sang it well, you sang it well.

I'm not hardcore about this, there's plenty of other context and if the writer of Logan accidentally wrote a great theme into it, I'm not going to dismiss that theme. But if the writer was just saying stuff to look cool and Andrew points out it seems to be a misreference, and I found it confusing at first; well there's why.
User avatar
Sudanna

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby Sudanna » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:12 pm

Authorial intent can be the reason a work is what it is, and explain why it is what it is, but it's only as relevant to the interpretation of the work as you want it to be. A film that is false to a general experience of depression would be false regardless of authorship. After all, a person with a genuine experience of depression maybe just can't make a film that communicates anything worthwhile. The converse is true as well: a novel portraying the inner life and motivations of a Kansan drone pilot in a moving and insightful way would be no less so for being written by a committed pacifist from Chile. If you look at a work and interpret that it's not genuine to whatever experience it attempts to convey, and look at the author and decide that they have no relation to a genuine experience of that thing, this explains a possible cause for the work ringing hollow, but shouldn't be a reason for making that interpretation in the first place.

(also, the degree to which large films can be said to have any single coherent author is l i m i t e d at best)
User avatar
Thomas

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby Thomas » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:32 pm

That's absolutely true, but I thing it's a big complex mix of the work, the author, your experience and the worldy context.

Because, say I didn't have any real experience of depression myself. Then I can't judge whether the film is portraying it accurately or not, even though the accuracy is a big factor in my feelings on the film. I can listen to other people and their opinions on it's accuracy, which would be important, but also knowing where the director comes from is a big clue into how worthwhile it is.

In the Chilean example, I just wouldn't be happy until I'd learnt what Kansas people and people who knew about drones thought of his work. And once they did, I'd be curious how the Chilean came to be so insightful about a subject they have no experience in. Moreover it would be interesting why a pacifist chose to right about that? Do they believe they're revealing a criticism? Are they just interested in people and able to write about other people purely from another person's perspective (which is a rare and valuable skill in the writer).

A lot of the Chinese films I watch are interesting to me, bad or good, because they were written by someone from China and they carry cultural baggage and expectations I'm not familiar with. If they weren't written by someone Chinese, but were equally as weird, they wouldn't be equally enjoyable to me because there's nothing to be gained from the weirdness. It's not an example of people groups thinking differently, it's just a film that doesn't go as expected.

In the end, I don't actually research the creators that often, but when I do I think it always enriches the work. For example, knowing Scorcese comes from a Catholic background does alter the way I think of Silence.

I can see the traps and dangers into trying to create pictures of a writer by going through their work, and it's something writers complain about. But without taking it to excess and combining it with all the other stuff, I think its not awful. Plus, in the generalities it does often play out. Like, it's not very surprising that JK Rowling is a liberal because she wrote 7 books about wrongness of alienating others.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:44 pm

4th Dimension wrote:Isn't one of cornerstones of modern literature inpterpretation the notion that the writer's intentions are "dead", not meaningfull, for the purpose of analysis and interpretation? If so your interpretation is just as if not more valid than the authors intent.


I dislike this because it implies that a crazy person interpreting your work in a crazy way has a more valid interpretation than you yourself.

To me,what the author wants to say and how skillful they are at saying that is more valid than how the audience interprets it.You can say that Stephenie Meyer wanted to write about love,and that many of the fans of her book see love portrayed in her work,but ultimately,her skill as an author produced only a shallow work about lust,teenage hormones and stupidity.

The only thing thats different for movies is that you need more skilled people to get that message across.Unless you are Tommy Wiseau,in which case you can ruin that message all on your own.
User avatar
Sudanna

Re: Movies are cool as well

Postby Sudanna » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:31 pm

Thomas wrote:That's absolutely true, but I thing it's a big complex mix of the work, the author, your experience and the worldy context.


I think of this sort of thing as appreciable in its own right in some sense, and often relevant to appreciating the -craft- of a work, or the outside metastory of a work being made, but not ultimately relevant to the self-contained interpretation or evaluation of a work. Ender's Game remains Ender's Game, whatever I learn about Card(I've always hated it! :D). Lovecraft's work is what it is, and while I personally love exploring how his worldview informed his fiction, it's not relevant to what any particular story means - it's a piece of information in and of itself, separate from the work.

I dislike this because it implies that a crazy person interpreting your work in a crazy way has a more valid interpretation than you yourself.

To me,what the author wants to say and how skillful they are at saying that is more valid than how the audience interprets it.You can say that Stephenie Meyer wanted to write about love,and that many of the fans of her book see love portrayed in her work,but ultimately,her skill as an author produced only a shallow work about lust,teenage hormones and stupidity.


Death of the author doesn't say that an author can't have an interpretation their own work. It says, among other things, that the author's interpretation or intention is not automatically the only valid one, and can't be assumed to be "correct" or universal. That one can find valid and meaningful interpretations of a work, sometimes many different ones, beyond the author's, and that sometimes an author never considered these interpretations or just flat-out doesn't understand their work very well in any capacity. Authorial intent also doesn't say that there is one consensus interpretation of a work.

You're not saying that you value the author's intentions in that example. If you did, you would say that Stephanie Meyer is correct and Twilight is about love. You're saying you have evaluated the work for what it is and decided on a different interpretation than the author and many other readers. That the author's intentions are not relevant to your interpretation of the work.

Return to “Twenty Sided Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests