TV/Movies Megathread

[mongers]

Documentary about a British civilian photographer embedded with a US unit in Afghanistan. Out on patrol, he steps on an IED, loses both legs and an arm, it starts with 5 minutes of dramatic helmet cam footage taken by one of the US medevac medics, who fight to save his life.

"You're a fuckin' hell of a fighter, you know that ?"

It goes on to tell of the 45 day long struggle to keep him alive, his rehabilitation and his return to work in Afghanistan and his coverage of the plight of Afghan civilians maimed in similar mine/IED attacks and bomb outrages.

Worth a viewing:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/walking-wounded-return-to-the-frontline/4od

[Tonitrus]

Banned in the USSA. 

[mongers]

Banned in the USSA. 

Sorry about that, best I can do is a promo for the programme:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxxoOJVedlQ&list=PL880EAF3F736F99AC&index=4&noredirect=1

And him talking about his experiences at a TED talk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxxoOJVedlQ

[Neil]

It's one of those modern shock-horror movies.  You should have known better.  They've never made a good one.

I don't know what means.  It arguably over-reliant on jump scares, but I will admit that I have a higher threshold for acceptable number of jump scares than most.  But almost all horror movies, old and new, rely in part on jump scares.  Jaws relies in part on jump scares.  Except, again, shark =/= scary, fake Mesopotamian deity = scary.  (By corollary, Ghostbusters is scarier than Jaws.)  Sinister also gets credit in that none of the jump scares are wholly innocuous, i.e. the proverbial cat in the cupboard.  More importantly, I felt it established a good claustrophobic and isolated atmosphere (if a bit unaccountably dark, but see also virtually every horror movie ever made*), and had an excellent core premise.  Sure it's got some flaws, at least two of which are very stupid, should have been easily avoided, and might sink the movie for some (I guess they did for Spellus), but I was happy to overlook them, and overall Sinister struck me as rather old-fashioned in its basic construction, both in plot and aesthetic.

*With some notable exceptions, such as The Woman, the worst bits of which happen on the most beautiful, clear and sunny day you'd have any right to expect.

I think you can take it to mean that the whole horror genre is absolutely, unredeemably awful.  There's an occasional movie that manages to transcend horror by linking up with a real genre, but they don't make those kind of movies anymore.  How can I tell that Sinister is awful?  It's a horror movie made in the last 30 years.

[Eddie Teach]

  There's an occasional movie that manages to transcend horror by linking up with a real genre, but they don't make those kind of movies anymore. 

Lots of horror-comedies out there- Cabin in the Woods, Tucker & Dale vs. Evil, Scream, Shaun of the Dead, Warm Bodies...

[Habbaku]

Nevermind.

[CountDeMoney]

Tucker & Dale vs. Evil,

That one was stupidly enjoyable. 

[Habbaku]

I liked it a lot.  Cabin in the Woods might well be one of the best movies of 2012, though.

[CountDeMoney]

I'll catch it, then.
I usually to stay away from horror/slasher flicks--I think the last one I actually watched was Devil, which was better than I thought it would be, considering who made it--but I'll check it out.

Too many goddamned possession/paranormal bullshit coming out these days.  Those freak me out, and I won't watch them.  Goes back to getting scared shitless by commercials for The Exorcist as a toddler in the early '70s, I think.

[Ideologue]

Too many goddamned possession/paranormal bullshit coming out these days.  Those freak me out, and I won't watch them.  Goes back to getting scared shitless by commercials for The Exorcist as a toddler in the early '70s, I think.

Those are the kind I like (when done well), for the same reason they bother you.  Horror movies are better with a supernatural element.  Films that don't but which are still successful tend to have a reason for existence outside trying to be scary, e.g. Silence of the Lambs (police thriller), or The Woman (revenge movie), or Seven (police thriller).  Ideally, for a horror movie qua horror movie the consequences should be supernatural as well.  Getting knifed to death is not really scary, in fact it's a pretty reasonable way to go, and that's why Saving Private Ryan is not a horror movie.

Pure slashers, even putatively good ones, never did too much for me.  Take John Carpenter movies.  Halloween is widely considered a classic, but it's probably my least favorite John Carpenter movie (well, other than Ghosts of Mars--but I did say "movie," not "Sega CD game accidentally released to movie theaters").  There's an element of superhumanity to Michael Myers, sure, but at the end of the day it's still just a slow guy in a Bill Shatner mask that may or may not successfully stab you.  It's probably less scary than Big Trouble in Little China.  I also find it much less enjoyable than The Thing, Prince of Darkness, or In the Mouth of Madness, all of which involve fates worse than death, engineered by enemies nearly-to-totally impossible to stop and fully totally impossible to understand--and definitely worse than getting pinned to the wall like a post-it with a kitchen knife by a guy who just doesn't seem to like sex very much.  (Carpenter's Apocalyptic Trilogy is also in each case substantially better made than Halloween, but that's not the only reason they're better overall.)

Also take Clive Barker's Hellraiser.  Remove the Cenobites and the puzzle box.  Now it's just Frank and Julia butchering sad old men who hang out in bars and aren't very conscious of their environments.  Lame.

BTW, Cabin in the Woods is way good but (and this is sort of a spoiler, maybe?) [spoiler]it is not really a horror movie, and is best viewed as a clever metafictional comedy, albeit less full of its own total bullshit than Seven Psychopaths, the other clever metafictional comedy of 2012[/spoiler].

[Ideologue]

It's one of those modern shock-horror movies.  You should have known better.  They've never made a good one.

I don't know what means.  It arguably over-reliant on jump scares, but I will admit that I have a higher threshold for acceptable number of jump scares than most.  But almost all horror movies, old and new, rely in part on jump scares.  Jaws relies in part on jump scares.  Except, again, shark =/= scary, fake Mesopotamian deity = scary.  (By corollary, Ghostbusters is scarier than Jaws.)  Sinister also gets credit in that none of the jump scares are wholly innocuous, i.e. the proverbial cat in the cupboard.  More importantly, I felt it established a good claustrophobic and isolated atmosphere (if a bit unaccountably dark, but see also virtually every horror movie ever made*), and had an excellent core premise.  Sure it's got some flaws, at least two of which are very stupid, should have been easily avoided, and might sink the movie for some (I guess they did for Spellus), but I was happy to overlook them, and overall Sinister struck me as rather old-fashioned in its basic construction, both in plot and aesthetic.

*With some notable exceptions, such as The Woman, the worst bits of which happen on the most beautiful, clear and sunny day you'd have any right to expect.

I think you can take it to mean that the whole horror genre is absolutely, unredeemably awful.  There's an occasional movie that manages to transcend horror by linking up with a real genre, but they don't make those kind of movies anymore.  How can I tell that Sinister is awful?  It's a horror movie made in the last 30 years.

Speaking of the Apocalyptic Trilogy, Prince of Darkness and In the Mouth of Madness are 26 and 18 years old respectively.

[CountDeMoney]

Take John Carpenter movies.  Halloween is widely considered a classic, but it's probably my least favorite John Carpenter movie (well, other than Ghosts of Mars--but I did say "movie," not "Sega CD game accidentally released to movie theaters").  There's an element of superhumanity to Michael Myers, sure, but at the end of the day it's still just a slow guy in a Bill Shatner mask that may or may not successfully stab you.

I think Halloween suffers from a generational gap: you kinda had to be there when it was a new genre; now, by today's production value, it's just a bit sedate.    But John Carpenter can still be hit or miss.  The Thing is still quality survivor horror, even after all these years.

Also take Clive Barker's Hellraiser.  Remove the Cenobites and the puzzle box.  Now it's just Frank and Julia butchering sad old men who hang out in bars and aren't very conscious of their environments.  Lame.

Clive Barker's work, unlike some other horror authors, has never translated well onto the big screen.  It's simply best left between the pages, where it can put the zap on your head.

It had not explicitly forbidden Will to follow it, which was all the invitation he needed. He went in cautious pursuit of it, like a spawning fish climbing waters that would have dashed him to death without the Nilotic ahead of him to breast the flow. Even so, he quickly understood the truth in its warnings. The deeper they ventured the more it seemed he was treading not among the echoes of the world, but in the world itself, his soul a thread of bliss passing into its mysteries.
He lay with a pack of panting dogs on a hill overlooking plains where antelope grazed. He marched with ants, and laboured in the rigours of the nest, filing eggs. He danced the mating dance of the bower bird, and slept on a warm rock with his lizard kin. He was a cloud. He was the shadow of a cloud. He was the moon that cast the shadow of a cloud. He was a blind fish; he was a shoal; he was a whale; he was the sea. He was the lord of all he surveyed. He was a worm in the dung of a kite. He did not grieve, knowing his life was a day long, or an hour. He did not wonder who made him. He did not wish to be other. He did not pray. He did not hope. He only was, and was, and was, and that was the joy of it.

You just can't put that on celluloid, dude.

[Ideologue]

Money, that's probably the salient point about Halloween.

But I write to note that I've been watching Breaking Bad while I've been studying.  Holy fucking shit this show is good.  I've known that for a while--I watched the pilot about six months back, really enjoyed it, but looked at it as its own self-contained thing (it has a happy ending!) and never till recently continued with the series as a whole.  This, of course, was a terrible mistake.

The show is also, at times, nauseatingly affecting.  I'm up to the point where [spoiler]Walt watches Q's daughter choke to death on her own puke and does nothing.  SHE'S TOO HOT TO DIE YOU MONSTER.[/spoiler]

[Queequeg]

[spoiler]Walt watches Q's daughter choke to death on her own puke and does nothing.  SHE'S TOO HOT TO DIE YOU MONSTER.[/spoiler]

This was probably the most a TV show has ever effected me.  I had to repress the urge to throw up. 

[Ideologue]

It was also the case that [spoiler]while she was kind of a bitch, and kind of a--well, not a gold digger, per se, but way too presumptuous about her rights to other people's money--it was pretty clear her and Jesse did care about each other.  And she was 100% right: drug problem* or no, that was Jesse's money.  It's uglier than any other action prior to it, because Walt isn't doing it because he's been cornered, or even for mere advantage, but because he's just playing God--and doing it very poorly.  Wasn't it here that someone was talking about the point that Walt became irredeemable?  I THINK I FOUND IT.

*And really Jesse's deep foray into drug use only dated to a recent traumatic event, Combo's death.  Dude was, while not wholly, reasonably clean, especially given his position.  Dumb as a fucking post at times, sometimes head-shakingly so, but not a wholesale addict.  There was as much onscreen evidence of Walt having an alcohol problem as Jesse having a problem with speedballing heroin and meth, unless you define use inherently as abuse, which is the sort of moral hypocrisy I don't expect from a drug manufacturer.  I mean, Walt's like "Stupid junkie you'll kill yourself in a week with a half mil in cash blah blah dad stuff blah."  The proper response to that is "I HAD 38 POUNDS OF METHAMPHETAMINE SITTING IN MY KITCHEN FOR A MONTH AND I AM IN FINE HEALTH."  By and large, it seems, Jesse smokes and shoots up responsibly.  That said, I guess I would be pretty pissed that Jesse slept through a burglary, but I would also remind myself that it is Jesse.  What exactly would Jesse being awake have brought to that particular table?[/spoiler]