Jump to content

ol' eddy wrecks

Members
  • Content count

    205
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

ol' eddy wrecks last won the day on January 13

ol' eddy wrecks had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

111 Neutral

About ol' eddy wrecks

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. ol' eddy wrecks

    A Night At The Opera

    Growing up I liked Holy Grail more the sheer silliness of it (and TBH, I was young enough I may not have been getting LoB). As I've gotten older, I like Life of Brian more for the religious satirical-aspect. Which I don't think social-political satire's sense of relevance (different than story, but possibly more difficult to land without a story) has been acknowledged yet in these comparisons. I still haven't bought into the political satire argument I've heard people say about Duck Soup. I won't be getting A Night at the Opera until after the polls close.
  2. ol' eddy wrecks

    Saving Private Ryan

    I guess I'll be the person who finds this to be a troubling. Orrr... The movie is steeped in the worldview of the American nationalistic and often jingoistic mythology of, "Be grateful to war vets. They gave their lives so you could have your freedom." (which doesn't even apply to any military conflict since WW2, yet, still said). I'll caveat it with the fact that I haven't seen the movie, but having heard everyone talk about it, I feel like I have seen good chunks of it, and it seems pretty clear that's what's going on here. I mean, looking up who wrote the screenplay, I'm not recognizing much of their other works (actually there aren't a lot), but they also did American Braveheart. I mean, The Patriot. Another war movie, which I also have not seen, but I'll guess based on true events that manages to be very ahistorical and pulls at nationalistic strings (I'm literally just guessing, by taking Braveheart and making it American). It seems like everything else you're reading into is a weird conspiratorial bent, while not factoring in, that's just how American culture remembers the two World Wars.
  3. ol' eddy wrecks

    Saving Private Ryan

    I'm looking through the list of 1998 films on letterboxd and I'm just thinking, "I think 1998 may just have been not a good year for film." Granted, I'm less taken with Rushmore and Lebowski than just about everyone else I've encountered talked to with movies over the years. So that might be skewing my take on the year. From the nominees, I'd probably take The Thin Red Line, but Mallick isn't for everyone, particularly later-Mallick (sometimes including me), and it doesn't seem like the type of movie that would win.
  4. ol' eddy wrecks

    Saving Private Ryan

    So, fwiw, I looked it up. https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/this-sea-battle-claimed-the-lives-of-5-brothers-in-world-war-ii There were 4 brothers. When it looked like 3 of them had died (it looks like one was shot down and presumed dead, but actually survived), the last one was sent home and basically served as an MP for the rest of the war. No stupid suicide mission. From the description of what I'm hearing from this movie, that final battle seems to be more based on the story of one of the brothers who died. My uncle's story checked out (5 brothers, not 7 though. Though I couldn't really remember the number he gave me). I am still curious what a good Eddie Slovik movie would have been. I guess I have to just imagine Paths of Glory, but set in WW2.
  5. ol' eddy wrecks

    Saving Private Ryan

    So, speaking as someone who generally doesn't like Spielberg's movies and has never seen this one, what I'm hearing is this the one I should definitely see. It is interesting seeing the criticisms leveled at this film feeling similar to how I feel about his other films. (At least as best as I can recall. The one possible exception being Jaws and possible Close Encounters, which I am still curious to see how my opinion of Jaws lands when we get to it). I think when people accuse a film of being "emotionally manipulative", I think they're trying to communicate something different than "something that was able to evoke an emotion in the viewer as was intended." Though exactly what, I have never been able to split that semantic hair to a degree that has wholly satisfied me. Apart from possibility the difference is in reference to being blatant or in your face (as Cameron stated above), I think the phrase, "unearned emotional response" also gets used and seems to also dance around what is off to the viewer. Logically speaking, does that mean, single children can't serve in World War II at this point? A story my uncle told me, of the "always a little suspect that this was just a story passed around." There were seven brothers, comprising all the children of a couple, all stationed on the same ship in WW2. It sank. The family lost all of it's children that day. So the army decided that they weren't going to station all siblings altogether on the same boat, or location or what-have-you, so that something like that wouldn't happen again. My uncle was stationed in Korea, and if I'm doing my math, it would have been in the 50s. For some reason idk if he actually served in the war or not. I feel like, he didn't, given the way he talked about it (which wasn't much). But I give that context for being around in the era shortly after WW2 and there was at least a story, if not an actual policy (which seems a lot more sensible than the plot of this movie, which I didn't know that was the reason for the rescue until the podcast.) I wonder if that was the basis for this movie (because I have a really hard time believing that war that spawned a book like Catch-22 and had the last time capital punishment* was invoked on a U.S. troop for desertion would have a policy of risking that many people to save one life). Maybe I could use "the google" to verify the basis of this movie or my uncle's story. But, heh, I'm lazy. *: This would have probably been a more interesting WW2 movie - one that you usually don't get to see. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik#In_popular_culture
  6. ol' eddy wrecks

    Request: Cover the Sight & Sound 50 Next?

    If they do the BFI list, I am going to wonder how many people are going to be on board to watch a 9 1/2 hour Holocaust documentary.
  7. ol' eddy wrecks

    Request: Cover the Sight & Sound 50 Next?

    The BFI Sight & Sounds poll precedes the AFI's by a number of decades. Just looking at their top 10 should answer your question about all the films being from a single country. https://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time Their ballot also didn't restrict people to choose from a small set (400) of films either.
  8. ol' eddy wrecks

    Best of 2018: Listener’s Picks

    Are you saying Green Book won't join the hallowed legacy of such greats as Crash, Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, Chicago, Oliver!, and Driving Miss Daisie?
  9. ol' eddy wrecks

    Best of 2018: Critics' Picks

    One weird thing about thinking about Annihilation on the AFI list, is that we live in a world where Tarkovsky's Stalker exists, and it isn't eligible for the AFI list because it's Russian. But it's weird to see an American film that is so directly influenced by it, but then the list can't have the seminal film (which is extremely well regarded internationally. it's 29th on the BFI critic's poll, 30th on the director's poll). On the flip side, that's two for two Alex Garland sci-fi films that have felt really solid and understood its material. I agree with Paul's assessment, if he gets a couple more solid entries, in, well, anything, I could see something like that happening. Though maybe not with the AFI list, since it seems to have a real hard time with independent films. I do want to say on Buster Scruggs, well, first a side-comment. I was once told that Moby Dick was a pantheistic novel, in which multiple people could interact with one physical thing in the universe and they'd all have this different way of perceiving it and what it meant to them. And if you just kind of weaved all those different things together, you got this complex, nuanced thing that was both a bit of all those things, but not necessarily any of them wholly and completely. I kind of took all the different tones of Buster Scruggs that way. We have all of these different stories of the west, what we cared about (gun slingers, bank robbers, artists trying to get by in the frontier, a miner encountering and spoiling an untouched valley for gold, and the story of nervous settlers just trying to find someone else to spend their time with as they migrate west), and all the crazy different tones in how we tell those stories. And so, it's just kind of contemplating through example, what do all these western stories add up to? (literal question about the afterlife presented in the first segment). Oh yeah, that, and death. So, I kind of loved it for what it did there. That said, I agree, there are a number of other great Coen Brothers movies, that I would expect and prefer to make the list. It did seem to get a short shrift (I think Amy's take of, "this is how we screwed it all up," seems most applicable to the Tom Waits segment, less-so the other segments).
  10. ol' eddy wrecks

    Best Of 2018: Blockbusters

    The "kid's movie" might not be the best case for the argument since that's not just "for the genre," but is making assumptions about the target audience, no? I think my answer was kind of a drift from the original complaint. It was in respect to "why do critics hate super-hero movies?" And my response seemed more akin to Amy trying to address it in the (next episode) Critics episode. Which is, I don't know if critics really hate them. Like, it is a sampling bias, but the podcasts I listen to, the critics seem to mostly enjoy them, but (outside of Amy who seems to just flat out hate the genre), the negatives seem to be of the nature of fatigue, exhaustion, and the despair of looking at the future release schedule. Now, maybe it's projection, but I only watch an MCU movie about once every other year, and it's usually well after it's left theaters (e.g. at the end of 2018, I watched Thor: Ragnarock). And as such, I end up with the experience of, "I enjoyed it. Very disposable and I don't know if I'm going to think much about it again." Though Thor was funnier than the others. But I also live in kind of a comparative cultural bubble. I don't see trailers for these movies, because I haven't had cable since 2000. Being able to not be overexposed to these movies, I don't really care about their existence, as opposed to really having any type of hate towards them. But it does leave me wondering how I would feel about them if I had to watch them even if I didn't feel like watching them. I imagine I'd start to hate them. Then again, I do watch Game of Thrones, which is a fairly empty show. A critic's job can be multiple things, so I don't fully disagree. I mean, sometimes, it's valid for them to discuss how does this entry in a genre stack up against other entries in the genre. Another thing they might engage in, what are limitations or shortcomings of this genre (or at least most known entries in the genre)? Is this movie derivative? Are we currently over-saturated with entries in this genre? Somewhat related to the above, I feel like if someone was making the case for the merits of A Nightmare on Elm Street, they're probably better positioned to do it now after we've forgotten about the campy sequels rather than in the late 80s when so many of horror movie franchise sequels were coming out. But that might just be me. I also don't think ANoES should be on the AFI all time list (and it's been too long since I've seen it), but compared to other potentially "good" horror movies, something related to the franchise horrors of the 80s, might be a better reference point for thought experiments for the present. Judging a westerns against other entries informs one's opinion of the movie, but, there's still the, "but is it 'good' compared to movies outside the genre?" Which is grudlian's point of, does it have to elevate it to the best movies of all time classification? I think choosing westerns from the AFI list is interesting as a comparison point since pretty much all the entries are considered subversive. It would be funny if the super-hero movies that made it on the AFI list were things like James Gunn's Super. Or, what Watchmen could have been (from what I've gathered. I read the GN over the years. Never saw the movie, because, Zach Snyder. I heard it discussed to death at the time. I say that one, because it's the story that would probably be considered most analogous like The Searchers). Though circling back to people dismissing action movies... Gladiator won best picture. And Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was nominated (coincidentally the same year X-Men came out, which was ground zero for the current superhero movie boom). I don't think the former was very good. But I think action alone isn't necessarily what disqualified them from people taking them seriously. I think when there's an ephemeral quality to the current crop of superhero movies, especially the MCU (admittedly speaking from limited exposure), that's causing people to not take them seriously. But I haven't seen Black Panther, and, as the AFI list is concerned, as was pointed out in the comments section, there are action-adventure movies on the list that also don't have a lot of gravitas. Though, I can't help but wonder, if a superhero movie had the right type of drama or gravitas it would be more reasonably considered (which makes me think The Dark Knight, after we get out of the current superhero glut, might be something people won't moan at in 30 years, in terms of, "should this be on the AFI list?"). Then again, Shane is on the list, and Logan (haven't seen) was supposed to be an updated version of Shane... I would be curious what the people who voted for Shane on the AFI list felt of Logan (not talking these forums, but for the actual AFI poll). Granted, I am the person who hasn't been too big on the blockbusters on the list. But, the list is what it is (in terms of perceived strengths and perceived shortcomings). I don't know. I feel like I drifted pretty far away from annetaylorphoto's original complaint in discussing all that.
  11. ol' eddy wrecks

    Best of 2018: Critics' Picks

    Is The Rider and Sorry to Bother You mainstream? I really don't know. My consumption of film media is very different than most people's so I heard them talked about more than, say, Into the Spiderverse. Probably more than Infinity War. Or maybe I just tune those discussions out and focus more on what I'm interested in. I'm usually behind on seeing movies - related to often waiting for these things to come to streaming. So mostly films I haven't seen but I feel like I've heard people talk about a decent amount or someone said something interesting on it. Shoplifters (mentioned in the podcast) The Rider (mentioned in the podcast) Zama (mentioned in the podcast) Shirkers (hey! I've seen this one, it's not a best of the year, but might be worth watching) Marrowbone (from the director of The Orphanage) In terms of graveyard shift festival type stuff, I wanted to see The Wind Categorized under, "I want to see these, and imdb says they're 2018 films, but I haven't heard of them showing anywhere): Peter Strickland's next film In Fabric Terry Gilliam's The Man who killed Don Quixote Looking over a local film festival line-up from the past year, it looks like Olivier Assayas had another movie this year (Non-Fiction) as did Asghar Farhadi (Everybody Knows). Honestly, I was pleased with Sorry to Bother You, Annihilation, The Death of Stalin, Leave no Trace, The Favourite, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, First Reformed (despite my possible qualms about the end), and Roma. Right the movies from 2018, I mostly want to see that I haven't are Beale Street and Shoplifters. I guess I'm just being art-house basic there.
  12. ol' eddy wrecks

    Best of 2018: Critics' Picks

    An individual's list of top films from a year often changes quite a bit over subsequent years. And as we've seen with all of these lists, they also change dramatically over time. I don't know how the list was determined, but the top 100 was done by ballot by a lot of people who probably didn't contribute to that top 10 list. What I'm saying is the meta critic list seems as good as a starting point as the AFI list. Also, no Green Book or Bohemian Rhapsody, so from my perspective that's a plus. But that's probably just confirmation bias to my taste (of movies I haven't seen, but I don't even think you could get me to spend the time to watch, either - based mainly on what critics have said).
  13. ol' eddy wrecks

    Best of 2018: Critics' Picks

    To partially answer the question and partially to not answer the question at all, the AFI put out a list of the top 10 American films for 2018 and included The Favourite. Roma was explicitly left off the list because it wasn't American, but was given a shout out. So, why to answer the part of the question of why it's being considered for the podcast of what might end up on the AFI best American movies of all time list, then according to the AFI it qualifies. As to why it qualifies according to them, the other posts in this thread are doing the tackling of sorting out the classification that makes me go, "hmmmmm...."
  14. ol' eddy wrecks

    Upcoming Episodes

    Sorry to Bother You - should still be on Hulu for those who haven't seen it. Annihilation - available on Hulu and included in your Amazon Prime subscription. The Favourite - you'll have to catch in theaters or wait until Feb 18th to rent or buy it from streaming services.
  15. ol' eddy wrecks

    Best Of 2018: Blockbusters

    That sounds like a summary of the Ethan Hawke interview, though when talking about it later, he clarified he still enjoys superhero movies, he just doesn't think they're particularly great. I do wonder if part of the reason why critics hate the over-abundance of superhero movies so much is, well, if they don't love them, given their success, they still have to watch them and talk about them for their job. Realistically, I don't know if a mainstream critic can really avoid them all if they wanted to.
×