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

gene_shallot

Members
  • Content count

    132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by gene_shallot


  1. I do like the idea of pairing it against Drive, if only because they'll inevitably be comparing the two during the episode.

     

    I happen to like both, but I wonder if the reception that Only God Forgives got, plus the early buzz on Neon Demon, tarnishes people's view of Drive in hindsight.


  2. Disagree. That episode was fantastic IMO.

    Really? None of the episodes were clunkers, but to me that one stood out as the least interesting (though 100% necessary) and most ham-fisted. And we're talking about a show hammier than Easter brunch. That's cool though, different strokes & all that.


  3. So yeah what's with the weird John Singleton hate from Devin in this episode? We've got crap like Clerks and Cannibal Holocaust in the Canon, and now you bust out the extra strict yard stick on this one? The movie's craftsmanship is fine for what it's trying to do. I don't think it's any more flatly shot than, say, Broadcast News.

     

    Baby Boy was fine.

    Shaft was fine.

    Four Brothers was fine.

    2 Fast 2 Furious had a lot of problems, but I don't think John Singleton was one.

     

    I agree they're not Canon-worthy (not even close) but Boyz-in-the-Hood is. The performances sell it for me, and damn was it ground-breaking at the time. A yes for me.


  4. Only partway through the podcast, but Devin - "The Race Card" from The People vs OJ Simpson was the worst episode??! <insert shade-filled Johnny Cochran retort>!

     

    Not even close. "A Jury in Jail" was the worst. In fact, there's even scenes in one of the best episodes ("Marcia, Marcia, Marcia") with way worse directing than anything in Singleton's episode. Ridiculous, sir.


  5. Would y'all file Objectivism under the 'conservative' category?

     

    Because I know quite a few critics think Brad Bird's films have an Objectivist undercurrent (which I can kinda see, although I don't think it detracts from his movies). True or not, I'd love to hear an episode on The Iron Giant, Ratatouille or The Incredibles anyways.

    • Like 1

  6.  

    Amy likes Paltrow, but not the character.

    "... she gets to register as a human being. You really get to like who she is in this." - Amy Nicholson

     

    Sounds like both to me.

     

     

    Argument for argument sake is not interesting on a film podcast. Playing devils advocate is not a fun listen. I'd even argue that when they agree and are so passionate about a film it is even more fun, especially when you look at the titles they disagree on.

    I don't know if anyone's playing devil's advocate; it seems like genuine disagreement - which should in theory generate interesting discussion. Nothing wrong with disagreeing.

     

    The problem is they sometimes get stuck on one or two points, instead of moving onto other topics (which is obviously easier to do when they agree). It doesn't have to be that way, though.

    • Like 1

  7. I have a rule of thumb for Amy that applies here. If there's a blonde woman in your movie, Amy's reaction will probably stem mostly from her depiction.

    But Amy liked Paltrow in the movie...(?)

    • Like 1

  8. That he managed to say, "you're deflecting honest discussion with a personal thing," without an ounce of irony is the most remarkable thing I've ever heard.

    Haha yes! Devin can dish it out but can't take it.

     

    On these types of episodes though it's like neither wants to back down, they both want to get the last word. It only takes one person to say "agree to disagree" and move on to another topic. Therefore I blame both of them! Let's get a debate moderator in there! Anderson Cooper or something. Or couples therapy.

    • Like 4

  9. It's going to be hard for me to rewatch this without thinking of Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood.

     

    I wonder if Singleton's post-Boyz n the Hood work tarnishes it in hindsight. Not that it was all bad - I feel Rosewood and Baby Boy are good, though maybe not great (and arguably better than this movie). And Shaft was at least fun... mostly due to bonkers Jeffrey Wright (he steals so many scenes by the end he's stolen the whole movie, to its overall detriment sadly, but damn he's fun to watch).

     

    But everyone, maybe unfairly, expected such big things from him at the time; instead he turned out to be 'just' a solid director.


  10. Not at all surprised that the man who nominated Cannibal Holocaust would love Seven.

     

    I can spend hours talking about this movie. I actually am a David Fincher fanboy, despite agreeing that he's not a passionate storyteller and can sometimes be style over substance.

     

    But I have never liked this movie, and was actually surprised to learn over the years how popular Seven is, and how seemingly everyone feels the opposite way I do. At least until this podcast! So I 100% expect this to get into the Canon, even if I wish it were Zodiac instead (Fincher's true serial killer masterpiece).

     

    My thoughts feel more scattered than an aspirin bottle-strewn apartment, so all I can think to do is bullet points:

    • Cultural influence and historical significance are the most boring Canon arguments ever. Canon-worthy movies should stand up on their own.
    • I liked Freeman, Pitt, & Paltrow fine, but Kevin Spacey so oversells the heaviness and "doesn't this blow your mind??!"-factor the movie goes for (especially during the final scene), I was giggling in the theater. Really killed it for me. The dialogue throughout is not great either.
    • I agree with Amy I didn't feel hope in the movie. Seven is consistently anti-hope. Why does the ending land with audiences? It's an easy "aha!" moment to anyone familiar with the 7 deadly sins... which is everybody.
    • I feel Seven does setup the standard buddy cop dynamic, cliches and all, but only in service of the 'shock' ending - to subvert our expectations of 'good guys always win' in movies like these.
    • Movies where retiree cops don't die but bad shit nonetheless goes down: No Country For Old Men, Falling Down, The Pledge, Lethal Weapon 3, Face/Off, uh... Men in Black (does that count??)
    • My chief beef is that the plot is so heavy-handed. It so wants to make John Doe's perfect plan to come together, it ignores the sheer Saw-like implausibility of it all to go off without a hitch. And Hannibal Lecters don't exist in real life - serial killers are the opposite of organized. I know, I know... it's just a movie. But really all the film IS is John Doe's 'genius' plan, what else is there? Aside from the production design, which is great. Arguably all Fincher movies are well made, but so what?

     

    So that's a no for me.

    • Like 4

  11. I don't think he's THAT bad, but it's not his best. To me it feels like he kind of knew what kind of character he was playing, and did the best he could with what he had, and eventually just said "Fuck it!" and went a off the rails with it. The only not-so-entertaining thing about that character is what happens to him at the end. Just... ugh. Every character was a piece of shit, and I wanted Oscar Issac's character to just shoot them all in the face while calling them "brother." haha!

    Oh I agree, Isaac went off the rails (maybe on purpose, I'll buy that). When I say he's bad, I mean... he's not winning any awards for this. But he is entertaining; maybe 'bad' in a wow, wtf-am-I-watching?? way (which, for our purposes, is great!). He's certainly the best part of the movie. Anyone reading this who's unconvinced... you must see his performance, and you must see this movie!

    • Like 1

  12. This is an interesting read on the topic. Sorta goes along with the theory mentioned by Joel...

     

    http://polygraph.cool/bechdel/

     

    "There’s this thing called the Bechdel Test. It measures just how male-dominated our beloved Netflix nights really are. To pass, films need to satisfy three requirements:

     

     

    #1 It has at least two women in it

    #2 Who talk to each other, about

    #3 Something besides a man

     

    It’s a low bar, but many good movies don’t pass. Birdman fails. Avatar fails. Fucking Toy Story fails. On bechdeltest.com, a site for crowdsourcing Bechdel Test results, about 40% of films don’t pass. It’s a sad state since women exist in life, like, half the time."

    The Bechdel Test is really interesting, but from what I read even the creator thought of it more as a conversation starter than a be-all-end-all sort of thing. You can find lots of examples of arguably feminist movies that fail the Bechdel Test (like Run Lola Run, or Gravity). But totally agree with your sentiment.

     

    I can see what Amy's saying; not that everyone necessarily needs representation, but how does the film handle the people it represents? ... just as soon as a local cinema carries the movie, I'd love to see for myself. (why won't you show the movie, WHY??!?!)

    • Like 1
×