TV/Movies Megathread

[FunkMonk]

Yeah 

[Malthus]

I can't see much cheering or applauding taking place during 12 Years a Slave unless it's being shown at a KKK rally.

Or an S&M convention. 

[viper37]

The Yoda fighting scene got a massive applause in the cinema I was in when the movie first came out. But yeah, it's terrible because it's so far out of character for him. And not in a "I never fight but you have given me no choice" way. That *might* have been interesting.

I don't think it was out of character.  All Jedi carry a ligthsaber.  It ain't just for show.  What's wrong with the movie is making it only 17 years before the original, where no one seems to remember what a Jedi is, even questionning their existance and such, when there was a massive war a decade and half earlier with Jedi adventures being broadcast on the holonet.

Well, lots of things sucked with these movies, but I don't think Yoda's characterization was one of them.  If anything, it shows the power of the force, and a Jedi attitude toward the Force.

The new Star Wars movies piss me off so much.

No love for Jar Jar Binks? 

[Admiral Yi]

To quote Eddie Murphy, the only people allowed to talk in the theater are black guys during kung fu movies.

[Savonarola]

The Yoda fighting scene got a massive applause in the cinema I was in when the movie first came out. But yeah, it's terrible because it's so far out of character for him. And not in a "I never fight but you have given me no choice" way. That *might* have been interesting.

The new Star Wars movies piss me off so much.

Same with the one I saw it in.  Damn, but do I hate Yoda.

Hatred leads to the dark side.   

I thought the scene was great; Count Dracula and a puppet fighting over the fate of the universe with laser swords is B-movie magic.  Only George Lucas could make a dull film out of that.

[Savonarola]

The Yoda fighting scene got a massive applause in the cinema I was in when the movie first came out. But yeah, it's terrible because it's so far out of character for him. And not in a "I never fight but you have given me no choice" way. That *might* have been interesting.

I don't think it was out of character.  All Jedi carry a ligthsaber.  It ain't just for show.  What's wrong with the movie is making it only 17 years before the original, where no one seems to remember what a Jedi is, even questionning their existance and such, when there was a massive war a decade and half earlier with Jedi adventures being broadcast on the holonet.

Well, lots of things sucked with these movies, but I don't think Yoda's characterization was one of them.  If anything, it shows the power of the force, and a Jedi attitude toward the Force.

It had to happen about 17 years ago since that's Luke and Leia's age.  You're right about the Jedi adventures being broadcast.  It would have made more sense if the Jedi were more secretive or more obscure.

[MadImmortalMan]

Anybody see the Netflix/Ricky Gervais show Derek?

[dps]

The Yoda fighting scene got a massive applause in the cinema I was in when the movie first came out. But yeah, it's terrible because it's so far out of character for him. And not in a "I never fight but you have given me no choice" way. That *might* have been interesting.

I don't think it was out of character.  All Jedi carry a ligthsaber.  It ain't just for show.  What's wrong with the movie is making it only 17 years before the original, where no one seems to remember what a Jedi is, even questionning their existance and such, when there was a massive war a decade and half earlier with Jedi adventures being broadcast on the holonet.

Well, lots of things sucked with these movies, but I don't think Yoda's characterization was one of them.  If anything, it shows the power of the force, and a Jedi attitude toward the Force.

It had to happen about 17 years ago since that's Luke and Leia's age.  You're right about the Jedi adventures being broadcast.  It would have made more sense if the Jedi were more secretive or more obscure.

I've heard that the original script for Episode IV called for Luke to be a 60-something year old man.  The timeline would have made more sense if they'd kept that idea, but I guess that the idea of the naive, inexperience hero being old enough to draw Social Security brings other problems.

[Admiral Yi]

And Darth would be around 85? 

[Sheilbh]

The first series of Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes is free on ITV Player!

[viper37]

It had to happen about 17 years ago since that's Luke and Leia's age.  You're right about the Jedi adventures being broadcast.  It would have made more sense if the Jedi were more secretive or more obscure.

I know that, but still that sucks in the movies, continuity wise.

I think it's Vader transformation, from Anakin to the Dark Lord of the Sith that sucks the most.  I can see what Lucas is trying to show, but it just doesn't work on screen, it's way too short.

[Ideologue]

We Are What We Are (2013).  Legitimately disturbing horror picture about a family of cannibals.  That's not a spoiler when the trailer features a scene of a doctor looking up "kuru" in a medical encyclopedia.  Unless you're stupid.  Nice gore and decent religious satire. B

The East (2013).  Corporate counter-intelligence versus hippies.  Complications arise when private security operative Brit Marling realizes she wants to bone smelly leftist Stellan Alexander Skarsgard.  (Wouldn't that have been more interesting, though?)  It's ok.  Ellen Page is in it and I like to see Ellen Page.  B

Casino Royale (2006), Quantum of Solace (2008), and Skyfall (2012).  I've decided Casino Royale is actually great, if still a bit too low-key for a 007 picture; it's deliriously well-made, just not my speed.  I've cooled very slightly to Quantum of Solace but still consider it a top-tier Bond film, and I see that it's still tragically underrated; insofar as it is a direct sequel to Casino, though, I'd think folks could at least admit that it's a whole hell of a lot better than Diamonds Are Forever, but nostalgia is the mind killer.  Skyfall remains absolutely beautiful garbage; I guess this must be how bad people feel about Return of the Jedi.  A, A, C+

Tyler Perry's Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor (2013).  Seems like most modern movies, when they're bad, are just boring (The Last Airbender) or ethically monstrous (The Host) or straight-up unwatchable (The Hunger Games).  Most are not "so bad its good."  Even movies like The Room are really only legitimately entertaining in the context of professional commentary tracks; I certainly wouldn't suggest that watching it alone and unadorned is an enjoyable experience.  And then... there's Temptation.

Oh, it is atrocious, but it is extravagantly fun, and all by itself.  Featuring just about the most essentially mechanical view of humans, especially women, that I've ever seen outside of a Drakken post, Temptation is the story of a young, married, Christian career woman in DC, who is seduced by a handsome, amoral rich man.  Temptation is in all respects a 21st century remake of Reefer Madness, only substitute "abs", or if you want to be crass, "dick," for the horrors of marijuana.  But that barely scratches the surface and this movie is probably both worse and funnier than even that old piece of ignorant propaganda.

I implore you to watch this whenever you get a chance, for I laughed like a madman and was legitimately entertained throughout.  The acting is seriously bad all around, but note particularly the parts where the lead actress tries to play "aroused"; I think I laughed for about five solid minutes at her fluttering eyes that for all the world make her look like she's doing an impression of someone having a stroke.  A clever nickname for the movie has been making the rounds, but to say it would be to spoil the best part.  Suffice it to say, the slut is punished, and it is hilarious.

Now, to say something genuinely nice about Temptation: I did think it was well-production designed.  The lead's office set is pretty nice.  The movie's a D in earnest, but a B+ in actual entertainment value

The Skin I Live In (2011).  I'd never seen a Pedro Almodovar movie before, but I'm getting I'm So Excited! in a few days, so I watched this, his last movie; and it tested my patience like no movie since The Conversation.  A surgeon stricken with grief kidnaps a test subject for his diabolical experiments.  Hijinks eventually ensue.  But, yes, they really do, and I don't want to spoil anything at all.

Ultimately--despite being a fucking mess of a thriller with go-nowhere plot elements introduced practically every ten minutes for the first hour, and an all-too-complicated backstory that does not translate into much of a persona for Antonio Banderas' nutty surgeon--The Skin I Live In is a delightfully depraved riff on the mad scientist film.  By "the mad scientist film," I mean specifically Eyes Without a Face, obviously, and that movie is cleaner in many ways.  However, it is not nearly as awesome in many, many more.  What I found truly fascinating, and unfortunately underexplored except in the film's last moments, was its conception of body horror as pure reverse-Cronenberg.  The horror here comes from essentially being made aesthetically perfect--but the kind of perfect one wouldn't likely choose for oneself.

Honestly, I would just about kill to see The Skin I Live In 2, because that would be the really interesting picture.  I may write this up.  It's a B, I think, but I should have watched it again.

Prisoners (2013).  I did write this one up.  "A dour, realistic, and compelling investigation into the ethics and efficacy of torture, largely undone once the Joker escapes from Arkham."

Drink the purple drank

C+

[Eddie Teach]

Skyfall remains <> garbage;

There's hope for you yet.

[Ideologue]

Hey, now, don't cut that shit.  Mendes' and Deakins' vision for the fight in Shanghai and the casino in Macau are just fucking amazing.  I wavered for months after seeing Skyfall over whether it was a good or a bad movie just on the strength of those two scenes (and the introductory scene of Silva, to be fair to Javier Bardem, who does a great job with what he's given).

But the movie itself?  Besides Silva's completely retarded plot--I mean, it falls apart while you're watching it, which is really bad--there's also the "thematic" Bond film that was written and the utter disinterest amounting to contempt Mendes apparently had for it.  Try to count how many times Bond is referred to as old, worn-out, etc. in this movie (I dare you).  Then see if there is any evidence for it in the film, other than him tiring from doing an unknown number of chin-ups and missing a difficult shot and thus failing to save Severine.  For Bonus Contempt--this time for the audience--note the scene when Bond has arrived at Skyfall, and has suddenly become a crack shot again.  Note, particularly, that this scene is about twelve to twenty-four hours later and as far as I can tell, it's literally the next time Bond has used a firearm since the execution of Severine.  (For Super Mega Extra Bonus Contempt: "...Exploding pens?  We don't really go in for that sort of thing any more."  I wanted to strangle that fay mutant Matt Smith clone in his cradle.)

Also, and Money made fun of me for it the last time I mentioned it, probably because I used the term "time loop," but it still bothers me: I really, really, really hate the appearance of the Aston Martin with machine guns, as if he's owned the fucking thing for, oh, going on fifty years now.

Stupid movie.  Great fight scene with pretty colors.

[Syt]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-movies-that-sent-opposite-their-intended-message/

The Dark Knight Rises: Anarchy Is Not That Bad

The Message:

Like Christopher Nolan's previous Batman movies, The Dark Knight Rises is awash with political commentary. A terrorist leader, Bane, seizes power in Gotham and starts giving speeches that read like a Wikipedia article about Marxism: The people of Gotham should rise up, throw off their chains made of rich people, and take over. The city's authorities are lured underground and trapped, and Batman is forced to watch from his distant prison as anti-capitalist anarchy destroys the city. The message here doesn't have to be spelled out in Mitt Romney bumper stickers: This is what happens when the 99 percent seize power, and it stinks more than the Porta-Potties in the second month of an Occupy Wall Street camp.


Why It Falls Flat:

Because Bane's anarchy-plagued Gotham works better than a lot of American cities.

Oh sure, we get a little montage of wealthy people getting dragged out into the street, and yes, there are some unfair trials going on. But for the average Joe Gothamite on the street? Life seems to be going pretty well. For example, look at these shots we see of Gotham's streets, months after it was taken over by Bane and his band of revolutionary thugs:

[clean streets]

Now let's compare those to what a normal city street looks like after 11 days of a garbage strike:

[garbage piling in the streets]

Clearly, someone is collecting Gotham's trash, so we can only assume that there was a deleted scene in which Bane took a break from fist-based murder and held a meeting that detailed an orderly garbage-collecting roster using PowerPoint slides:

"When the polyethylene terephthalate bottles have been separated from the miscellaneous polystyrene, then you have my permission to recycle."

The streets are also apparently getting plowed, which is more than Gotham's real-life counterpart can manage when it's not being occupied by evil mercenaries. Sewerage and water are presumably still running, judging by how clean everyone looks and how much typhoid they don't have. The cops trapped underground are being fed, which means that the occupation has a functioning welfare system that extends even to its political enemies. Electricity is common enough for people to talk about watching TV. And all this without anyone paying any taxes. Nolan's depiction of a socialist nightmare actually looks pretty sweet. Maybe Venezuela can learn from the masked sociopath, and prevent all those toilet paper shortages it keeps having.

Yes, Bane did have a bomb that was going to blow up the city. But that just means that Nolan's message ended up being "violent socialist revolutions are alright, provided that no one stumbles on any experimental nuclear weapons."