Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

DannytheWall

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    174

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by DannytheWall

  1. Posted

    1 hour ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    I think Spielberg would qualify as an "epic war movie" filmmaker who isn't a difficult tyrant on set.

    Thank you! That was what I was shouting at the podcast, but they couldn't hear me. 

    I wonder if the tyrannical director is a feature of Hollywood that isn't as present anymore. It fueled and was then propigated by the Auteur Theory, I'm sure, but doesn't seem how we define it these days. Are there any directors who have emerged in the past 40 years or so (using Speilberg as the timeline) that match a chariacature of the volitile "artiste" director?     

  3. Posted

    I enjoyed listening to the episode - I think it will be one of Unspooled's best. Not because anyone "won" an argument or anthing, but it was an actual discussion about how two people see a film.

    Amy's ideas about the casting was something I never considered before, and I can kind of see it. Not that I necessarily agree with it. Actually, I'm of two minds. Wasn't it Roger Altman who said that 90% of the director's creative work is in casting? It's a part of the palette the director can use to paint the film how he/she wants to. It *could* have lent something completely different to some of those key scenes. Not only that, but for a film that's meant to be autobiographical and therefore ostensibly more "real," a better air of authenticity such as with age ranges would help. That being said, Scorcese certainly wanted a "performance" on his palette rather than shades of "true to the age range." And we can't argue that the performances aren't great. (Also, this argument wasn't the "hill" Amy wanted to die on anyway, so it's not a key point or anything. I'd just like to add that this is the kind of criticism that is faulting a film for what it it *isn't*, which I never really put too much stock into.)    

    I kept waiting for some more substantial criticism but it never really came. I don't like this movie. I tried a rewatch before the podcast episode, but it still never clicked. I watched it as a young person and didn't get why it was so praised. Rewatched as a more serious film student years later and said "Oh!" but yeah still didn't get it. It's a fine movie, not saying it's bad. Just overrated.

    For sake of context, I don't like gangster films in general. If that discredits my p.o.v., that's ok. I'll own up to that. I did enjoy Godfather 1 (and 2 even moreso) as those seemed to invoke something larger, more epic or akin to a tale of a dynasty. Goodfellas and others of its ilk are always so mundane, trying to normalize but deify the lifestyle, to delight in it and condemn it at the same time, ultimately rendering it pointless. Goodfellas in particular has no arc for its character. Granted, it's more nonfiction and documentary in its roots, but essentially the character Henry Hill is the same at the beginning and at the end. He and by extention the viewers don't actually learn anything. Noboby is truly challenged or conflicted, or if they are, they don't really do anything/can't do anything about it. I rarely like narration as a device, and here it just feels so random. Take that plus the breaking of the fourth wall at the end and the whole thing basically boils down to your old granduncle trying to tell the same story of his glory days for no reason whether you want to listen or not. Great, thanks, uncle Hill. Got it. Sure, tell me again about cooking sauce in prison, yeah.   

        

    • Like 3

  5. Posted

    Def a love-hate relationship with Harry Potter. Didn't care at all for the first book, turned around and loved the richness as it build in the second and third, only to be disappointed and apathetic by the end. One of the key disappointments was the whole SPEW thing. Here is a character (a strong female protagonist) clearly aiming to do something heroic and fight a true injustice against an impoverished indentured class, only to have it be so dismissed on every level by the characters and the author herself. I understand that implicitly an American is going to read into these class-ish issues differently than a British person, but it's Just. So. Glaring. If being anti-establishment in this manner is going to make me a Slytherin, then damn straight I'm going to wear those color with pride. 

    In related news, for a different writing project, I set out looking at strange conspiracy theories. Apparently there is a real conspiracy theory out there that JK Rowling doesn't exist. That would explain a lot, though. 

    • Like 2
    • Hedgehog 1

  6. Posted

     

    I tried rewatching this one for the podcast, but it was still hard to do in one setting. I had to space it out over three days. Thanks, D.W. Jeez.  

    Just to share my experience in case anyone wants to try it out -- to make silent movies more watchable, I usually do two things.

    One-- I change the frame rate to slightly slower than 100%, like .9 or .8. Often, this smooths the action to a more natural degree. Not all silent movies are the same or transferred the same to modern video, but very often the frame rate for early movies is "off" from the regular video rate we are used to. It takes some playing sometimes to find the right fit, but it's so much more pleasant to watch. 

    Second, I always have the habit of playing my own soundtrack over silent movies. My rationale being-- they often used then-contemporary music to accompany the visuals, so why can't I do the same?  It *always* engages me much more into the movie; somehow I'm able to pay attention better. Sometimes I deliberately create a playlist of a variety/range of music instrumentals, electronica, etc. This time, I just set a random Danny Elfman soundtrack mix in the background. It was eerie how much of it actually matched without me ever having to adjust it. I especially liked the Mars Attacks layered onto the celebration in Babylon, right after the theme from Spider-Man was over the seige by Cyrus. Sometimes is was a bit too surreal/melodramatic, like Beetlejuice's theme over the racecar versus train moment. The last few minutes of the film was set to Sally's theme from Nightmare Before Christmas, which was suspenceful and poignant when needed at the saved hanging, and mournful and sad over the scenes of war. And the song ended right as "The End" played. Synchronistic!  

     

    • Like 2

  7. Posted

    One more thing that's been bugging me, or at least one thing that I was really disappointed in, and that's the tropes with the POC being so token. Once again, the only black actor has to fill multiple checklists -- the sidekick, the techie, the hapless funnyman. He is *literally* sidelined into his own room for pretty much any scene he is in-- was he even scheduled with other actors for more than one day? Come on, 2020, we're supposed to be better at this by now.  

    • Like 2

  8. Posted

    17 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    Should...we come up with our on 90’s superheroes?

    I know you're joking, but I love "Shreadnaught." LOL. But you need all caps to really get the effect, like **SHREADNAUGHT!!!** (best if read in a Steve Austin voice)  All of those are awesome  

    Closer to home, what about the code names for the other characters in the movies? Forklift Arms just doesn't have the same ring to it. 

    Instead how about: DEATHARMS or KILLGRIP or STRIKEFIST or  to keep the theme BLOODSTRIKE (wait, is there a Bloodstrike? Sounds like there should be a Bloodstrike already.) Really, tho, is there any better name here than Cameron's Shreadnaught? 

    The Eye Guy I can't even remember, but if he had a codename like DEADAIM or EYEPIERCE or KILLGAZE I would most definitely remember. It's all about branding, right?! So might as well go with BLOODHAWK in this case.

    KT is more difficult because *of course* a woman should only have passive if not solely defensive powers.  AIRSTRIKE seems a given, but maybe WINDKILL or DEATHWIND. Leaning into the gas-based attacks we could easily have BLOODSMOKE.  

    I would suggest Bloodshot, Bloodstrike, Bloodhawk, and Bloodsmoke all join in a Right Stuff-slo mo walk under the team name BLOOD BROTHERS, but even for me that's a bridge too far.  

    • Like 1

  9. Posted

    Did I miss something? Because my question is, did Ray Garrison ever get called Bloodshot at all during the movie? Is it a codename for the process or some other thing? Would anyone who comes into this movie and doesn't know that it comes from a comic book called "Bloodshot" know what the movie title was referring to?

    And what kind of name is Bloodshot? Because his blood is ... shot with nannites? Because he ... shoots people with guns and they bleed? I kid 'cause I love. I was a comic book fan in the 90s. This was coming from same era when a very common satire was to make a compound word for a hero name taking something randomly from column A and column B. After all, this was the decade that gave us names like Hellboy, Witchblade, Shadowhawk, Shatterstar, Ripclaw, Bloodwynd, etc etc. And, yes, even Deadpool.  

    • Like 2

  10. Posted

    On 4/25/2020 at 2:51 AM, DrGuts1003 said:

    Everyone seemed confused about the ending and what happened to Vin, but given that this movie is basically one big cheat when it comes to what is and is not real, isn't it possible that the "happy ending" is just a new simulation by Guy Pearce and his company?  What if they realized that their current motivation story wasn't working anymore and developed a new story that made him think he had killed off the team and was now free, when in reality he is still being manipulated by Pearce?

     

    I picked up on what you thought, too. The lines in the sunset scene goes something like Bloodshot saying "It's like a dream" and the woman agrees by saying "It is." Don't do that to me, movie!  

    The "ending" I think the hosts were confused about was about the nature of Vin's character at the end, which Runcible gave a good take on, above.

    I half-picture some kind of deleted scene with KT and Wiggins using a vacuum cleaner or waving around a big magnet that is picking up nannites like they're those fuzzy black iron filaments we played with as a kid. Scoop 'em all up and plug them into something and wait for them to rebuild Ray Garrison somehow, despite basic physics. I mean, we've been ignoring the laws of conservation of mass for an hour and 40 minutes anyway, so why not here too?  

    But then I get thinking, really, if they had to re-build Bloodshot from scratch, where are they getting all the raw material and capital and infrastructure to take what was once a skyscraper and duplicate it into a RV trailer.   
     

     

    • Like 1

  11. Posted

    I enjoy rewatching films for this podcast just as much as discovering or getting a chance to see ones that are new for me. I realized I barely remembered it from the first time I saw it, which was as a young adult and years before having chances to see/work with the stage version multiple times. For personal and professional reasons, I got to see this film in SUCH a new way this time and for that I'm grateful to the podcast.

    As for it's place on the list, I think at a first glance it's easy to overlook, and that there's enough there once you start digging. On one had, to be representative of a filmed musical, I'd say it's not "spectacle" enough like West Side Story, but I doubt any filmed musical could ever match Sound of Music's iconic status (regardless of that film's quality.) So I would say bump off Singin' in the Rain, although I appreciate Singin's place in Hollywood history, it's just a bit too simplisitc and less innovative in its time as Cabaret.    

  12. Posted

     

    6 hours ago, GrahamS. said:

    (1)films that are fun to hear them talk about but I have no desire to watch (which is about 2/3 of the movies,honestly, and includes most modern blockbusters like The Meg and Skyscraper).

     (2) Films that are batshit enough to be funny/entertaining on their own (Fateful Findings, The Visitor, The Room, Death Spa, etc.).

    I can attest it's more #1 than #2 by that criteria. I saw the film in theaters as its international release was in February before any lockdown here in Kuala Lumpur. I paid about 15RM which is about US$4.50.  I would say it was worth that price. 20 US$? Woof.  

    I often don't watch the movies they do for the show, moreso because simply Time is a factor, but I can say it *does* enhance the podcast if you do. And Bloodshot is sure to have some *great* HDTGM moments, though. As my friend said, quote, "well, it's .... very Vin Diesel-y." I hope they can wait until the rental prices kick in.   

    • Like 4

  13. Posted

    49 minutes ago, Cam Bert said:

    Speaking of technology that was invented for a very specific purpose that couldn't have been know, what about John Goodman's gun that splits apart? Perfect if you have two people that are sitting the exact space apart that your gun opens up to. If someone were to move a chair or just lean to the side the whole gun is rendered useless. Also, how often are exactly two people coming in? Does he find it's normally just solo individuals or groups of two? What if three people came in? Does he have a special three way gun? Like you said all the tech in this movie is very specifically designed for these specific purposes that nobody would have seen coming.

    For this and the other ideas, it's best if you think about this whole movie as being a story told by an eight year-old. 

    "And then Valerian gets these googles that let him see the market. And he has to put his hand in the box so he can move around in it. And his gun is in the box so he can use it in the market, too. After walking around a bit he finds the fat alien trading for the creature who can poop out hundreds of marbles that are actually these energy batteries if he eats just one, and the alien guy uses this gun on the traders and it splits in two so it could blast both of them but Valerian is behind him but invisible because of the box tech thing ...."  

    So basically it's a Reverse-Princess-Bride scenario, and what's really missing is cutting to the bedroom where the boy is telling his grandfather what's happening. 

    • Like 4

  14. Posted

    On 4/10/2020 at 9:11 AM, grudlian. said:

    The closest I can think of would be Wall Street but I'm not sure if that's quite right either. People use it as a definition of the 80s. It didn't necessarily create yuppie culture, but I think it popularized it the way Easy Rider did. But I think very few people left Wall Street dreaming of being Gordon Gecko and everything he stood for (though some audience members certainly did).

    How about Ferris Bueller's Day Off? It probably doesn't win by being a comedy, but it has the themes of dissafectedness and it quite existential in its own way.  

    • Like 1

  15. Posted

    I'm definitely on record as never having liked the movie, although my stance has softened a bit recently. There's a fine line between being personally expressive through art and being self-indulgent. I called these films "student film-ish" and, yes, that was even when I was a film student. I suppose I had my own self-indulgences at the time, admittedly. 

    That being said, there is something inherently counterculture and subversive with this movie. Now that I'm a film teacher, I recognize its power, and that it still resonates with many young people, particularly those on the cusp of transitioning into the "adult world." It's like a glimpse into something that is almost taboo in a way because adults would never share this stuff except amongst themselves. For some young people, there's a secret thrill, like it might be the first time someone showed you how to smoke a joint. When was the first time you saw you parents do something that shattered your childhood notions that they were perfect? If there is a word for that, that's what the tone of this film is. 

    But I would still vote it off the list and rank it near the bottom on my personal version of the 100.    

     

  18. Posted

    3 hours ago, Cam Bert said:

    What doesn't make sense is Rhianna's show. So Bubble is an alien than can look and sound like anyone of anything. This is perfect for the adult industry. Whatever your dark dirty secret is this alien can be it. Want to hook up with an old flame? Can do. Want to sleep with your sister? Can do. Want to try a different gender or race? Check and check. That's the point of that race and why they're in that line of work. So if they can be anything and that's why you are seeking them out, how does a bunch of different costumes draw you in? I don't want to hook up with a shape shifter because it can look like a nurse and then immediately look like Liza from Cabaret. No. I want to hook up with them because who and what they can be.

    Add to that, did anyone really think that Bubble had died? She's a shapechanger, whose WHOLE shtick was that she was the "best actor ever." I kept waiting for her return at some climactic point, especially when there was such a big deal about whether or not DNA could identify who was speaking--- I kept thinking the heroes would be saved in the end by a last-second Bubble reappearance. I mean, there's enough weakness in the plot that a Bubble Ex Machina wouldn't be any more of a sin. Or -- what if Bubble faked her death then secretly switched places with Valerian right after the trash chute escape? That means the last third of the movie was really Rihanna saving the day, and I'm ok with that.  

    • Like 2

  19. Posted

    Right away I knew were in for it. Damn, that shaking hands scene. Triggered due to our current moment, but also because I wondered-- why are these guys such terrible diplomats? Don't roll your eyes when the Japanese guests bow at you, even though apparently they're the ONLY group of people in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE that doesn't shake hands. Or is every alien race diplomatic enough to learn about Western earth culture, but we don't have to greet visitors by learning how they express greetings? I guess we shouldn't be surprised with all the implicit sexism that also didn't change for 800 years. Not just in leaving out Lauraleen in the title or the "wait in the lobby" moments but with all of the "be a man" or "oh, surprised that a little girl can do this?" kind of dialogue throughout. Valerian and the City of a Thousand Microagressions. 

    So, yeah, the shaking hands thing --- gratuitous, yes, but, if you connect it to the pivotal backstory about whatever war it was that wiped out planet Mul, the movie seems to suggest that all is not well in future paradise. Humans may have joined the galaxy at some point (the opening montage) but it didn't go very well and resulted in, literally, untold violence (the planet destruction) and currently the situation remains uneasy and delicate (the United Human Federation, or UHF -- best pronounced in a Jason Manzoukis voice.) If only that was a bit more, I dunno, clear and/or prominent or whatever, it would help fit a lot of the elements together, from the ways the areas of Thousand-world-city interact to the way Valerian is motivated as a peacekeeper. Maybe this is more richly in the original material?       

    • Like 4

  22. Posted · Edited by DannytheWall

    On 3/28/2020 at 8:18 AM, Elektra Boogaloo said:

    I learned today that the two tei or taotie are a mythological creature in China. They represent gluttony, which I think Paul referenced when namechecking WALL STREET's "greed is good." It doesn't seem like there is a standard depiction, as with many fictional creatures. (I have had fights about how many legs a dragon has.) But the alien/bug device seems new... 

    Yeah, the taotie is one of four legendary creatures often called The Four Fiends. So with all the talk of sequels, you got at least three more to build the Great Wall universe. The Hundun, a formless creature of chaos with six legs, four wings, and no face, although it's also been described as a large sack; Qiongqi, a cross between a hedgehog and large tiger that flies with giant wings; and the Taowu, a shaggy beast with a human head and long boar-like tusks. It's clear the moviemakers just wanted to use the Taotie in name only to refer to the alien dogs that act like hive-mind insect swarms, but for the record the mythological Taotie are creatures with a giant ram's body, tiger’s teeth and human face and hands, although its eyes are hidden under his armpits and has a baby’s voice.

    The Four Fiends are the evil counterparts for the Four Auspicious Beasts, one for each of the Four Courners of Heaven, aka the cardinal directions of East, West, North, South: the Blue Dragon, the Vermilion Bird, the White Tiger, and the Black Tortoise. I kept looking for ways that the movie might make the human characters stand-ins for one of the Auspicious Beasts in order to symbolize the mythological rivalry, but then I realized I was giving more thought to it than the filmmakers did so I stopped.    

    Disclosure: not Chinese, just a folklore enthusiast. 

    Disclosure II: not Chinese, but after living in Shanghai for five years, I've become *That Guy* who cringes every time every single person mispronounced Taotie. It should be "tao-tee-yay", but I'll forgive if you don't have a falling tone on the last syllable. I did look up "tao-t-a-i" that slant rhymes with "bow tie", and apparently "淘汰" could be read as "natural selection" or "elimination as in natural selection," so that fits!   

      

    • Like 5

  23. Posted

    12 hours ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    No, but it is shooting for realism, isn't it? This is about a real world case being solved by real world people in order to focus in on real life justice and human nature.

     

    No, it's shooting for verisimilitude. It's about how any person can make decisions when no one can't ever know what's the truth. 

    That's divorced from its reputation or its use as an instructional "aid." I think such use would speak more of its popularity/influence and the fact that it's likely guaranteed to be encountered by Americans in public education as opposed to, say, Rashomon. 

    But that's fine to disagree. I often approach film theory/art in a more abstract and representational versus presentational way, so I'm likely going to always push for that perspective.   

  24. Posted

    On 3/28/2020 at 7:01 AM, FictionIsntReal said:
    On 3/27/2020 at 9:36 AM, AlmostAGhost said:

    Lawyers, judges, juries: each have their own necessary function, and this jury in this movie takes on all three roles. It's kind of bizarre and the one thing I can't fully get my head around it, or why it was necessary to write that way.

     

    Maybe in some alternate universe there exists the director's cut alternate ending, when Henry Ford's character walks out of the courtroom, and the camera pulls back through the eye of the REAL jury member and we learn that all along the 12 angry men were all inside the mind of the same man, Pixar's Inside Out-style.  Whoa! 12 Angry Inceptions! 

     

  25. Posted

    On 3/28/2020 at 12:05 AM, sycasey 2.0 said:

    Yeah, this isn't clearly intended as a fantasy like Star Wars is. There's no "a long time ago in a courtroom far far away" tagline. I think complaints about the realism are fair game (though IMO overrided by lots of other virtues).

    But neither are they clearly intending it to be a documentary or cinema verite.

    I'm guessing that it's partly due to its roots as a theatrical play, in that the story is allowed to be more representational/metaphoric. I'm buying into the more abstract representation than you all, and probably even Amy (who wondered in the podcast if it was meant to show "these men," "men" or "just human nature," to paraphrase.)     

×