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

Entering the Bone Zone

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    63

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Entering the Bone Zone

  1. Posted

    I may or may not be in the middle of watching all seven movies over the weekend.

     

    Amazing idea. I have contemplated this marathon myself, but it seems awfully daunting.

     

    How jarring is it to get from the original to Furious 7 in one weekend? In the original Brian O'Connor got guff from his superiors about the cost of replacing the souped up drag racing Honda Accords (or whatever) he was losing. In 7 the gang appears to have a nearly unlimited travel, car, and weapon/gadget budget courtesy of either The Rock's government group or Kurt Russell's government group. In the first half-ish of the series the gang is pursuing criminal activities of some kind or on the lam for them, but now they are directly in the employ of Uncle Sam and apparently are not responsible in any capacity for the collateral damage inflicted upon Rio, London, and now Los Angeles.

     

    That said, Furious 7 is a movie comprised almost entirely of boss fights (Statham v Rock, Statham v Diesel, Walker v Jaa, Rodriguez v Rousey, most of the crew v Hounsou) and beautifully crafted if implausible set pieces in the Caucus Mountains, Abu Dhabi, and Los Angeles. There is very little exposition, and it is glorious.

     

    My hope is that with 8 - do away with any naming conventions, switch to simply numbers, and force the world to reckon with the fact that this is the defining movie series of our time, perhaps all time - the scale is pulled back a bit. You can't get bigger and boss fightier than the masterpiece we got this year. Less is more, Vin.

    • Like 2

  2. Posted

    The blogger points out that (s)he watches the movies in a group setting, so I think that is seriously impacting these choices. I found Safe Haven to be the most boring movie I have seen in ages, and agree with the blogger's point about the total absence of charisma and chemistry... which is why it would be found at the bottom of my list. Watching that movie alone is a violation of the Geneva Convention, I think. In a group with booze - maybe Duhamel's inert blandness becomes sublime?

  4. Posted

    Did anyone else notice that when Ramsay brings Thompson home for the first time there was a box of C-3PO's cereal on the counter?

     

    I know that this movie takes place at an unspecified point in the future, but those were taken off the market in 1984 (or thereabouts). Throw that stuff away, it's got to be stale as shit!

     

    Sorry, I can't get a screen cap of it, but I can provide this:

     

    50_5271_ucp.jpg

     

    Why on Earth was this taken off the market??

    • Like 4

  5. Posted

    Even the theme song of the cartoon sets up their dynamic, but for the movie, they just said, "Fuck it. They know."

     

    The real bitch of it all is that Leonardo doesn't really have a personality to speak of, even in the cartoons. Donny is the nerd, Raph is the cutup, Mikey is the bro, Leo is the... leader? The movie reducing Leo's only known character trait (aside from a love of sweet, sweet pizza pie) to a debated footnote is not its narrative high point. Only history can decide what that high point will ultimately be. I vote for the ultra hip Bogie references.

    • Like 1

  6. Posted

    FIRST - im not american,i live in europe,

    BUT i have to say, what was jason thinking ranting in the beginning about 9/11??

    what is your point in trying to make fun of that horrible thing?

    seriously you are better than that,

    there were nothing funny about that day.

     

    that was a low point.

    you could hear how paul tried to save the situation by steering it away from that.

     

    Tragedy + time = comedy. They have mined the 9/11 truther stuff for laughs in about half a dozen episodes, this was hardly the first time. And the joke is not about the victims of 9/11, it is about the batshit insane subculture of people who use the internets as a forum for conspiracy theories and such.

    • Like 1

  8. Posted

    I do agree that feet are kinda gross and sandals are best utilized at the beach or pool, particularly for men. And of course we must acknowledge that Zooks was doing a bit.

     

    That said - adults telling other adults what to wear, how to drink their cocktails, how to eat their food... Just. Stop. This happens all the time and I find it to be the zenith of pretentious behavior. You aren't Maxim magazine, and frankly you probably aren't very bright, so just drink your shit neat and I'll take my ice cubes and everyone should just focus on how to not be the worst humans ever for five seconds a day and we'd all be happier.

  10. Posted

    You're right in that there is something of a disconnect at work. I love film and place great value on plot and character (I found virtues in the plot and characters of Jupiter Ascending, btw). While my appreciation of JA's visuals is only an aspect of my enjoyment of the film, I'm not going to deny it's a big aspect - I'm a very visual person and I love silent films, so I have a very deep appreciation for film on a purely aesthetic level. The designs and environments of Jupiter Ascending are ornate, baroque and excessive, and its visuals couldn't be more different from those of Star Wars - I prefer the visuals of JA because they appeal to my personal tastes and preferences, but I completely understand why you prefer the visuals of Star Wars.

     

    Stalemate. But I have to ask, what virtues are you finding in plot and character?

     

    I obviously can't speak for the 2nd opinion guy, but I had the impression he meant 'operating in the same sphere as Star Wars' - I didn't think he was saying JA matched Star Wars in terms of overall quality, since that would be almost impossible to argue convincingly - I think he just meant they were in the same ball-park in terms of their aspirations and scope. A film's having aspiration and scope do not necessarily mean it has quality, of course, but they do mean it has ambition. Star Wars and JA are both very ambitious films in their own ways and contexts, which is why they deserve to be part of the same discussion.

     

    Well I will grant you that much. But to me ambition is substituted for execution in JA, so I give no milk and cookies.

     

    I've been really impressed by how polite and respectful everyone on these boards has been.

     

    On behalf of the internet, insert ad hominem attack here.

    • Like 2

  11. Posted

     

    And yet you somehow managed to completely ignore the "credible" opinion in the post you were responding to.

     

     

    Sorry for being an e-jerk. This is an internet message board! But I still take umbrage with this as a credible comparison.

     

     

    As far as scope and aspiration goes, you could 100% compare this to Star Wars, which was the point being made. In the same way, you can compare (and the HDGTM crew did compare) the movie to The Matrix because it had many of the same themes.

     

     

    In another post I just went into the idea of scope as a false beacon of quality, so I won't repeat it. Suffice to say I disagree that the comparison is valid. I think the Matrix comparisons are only made because JA is from the same filmmakers - and frankly I think the quality of the Matrix is the clear outlier in the Wachowskis body of work. The idea of the Chosen One coming from a humble beginning was not created by the Wachowskis by any stretch of the imagination. The Matrix is the only film where they take the well-established storytelling device and execute it successfully.

     

    As a total Star Wars fanboy, I was somewhat taken aback when they made the comparison, but it does make sense when you talk about the scope of the film and aspirations of the filmmakers. (On a related note, I also there's a really good comparison to be made between The Wachowskis and George Lucas as filmmakers.)

     

    Samesies. You are just taking a softer stance on the matter than I am. And I agree - in fact we had some back and forth on the minisode post about the Lucas-y vibes.

    • Like 1

  12. Posted

     

    Well, to view the films on an 'objective' level Jupiter Ascending would win over Star Wars when it comes to pure visual spectacle - it wouldn't be a competition because the technology we have now is far beyond anything special effects artists could dream of in 1977. I'd say that Jupiter Ascending is at least a match for Star Wars on the levels of its visual presentation and world-building, and I can construct a credible argument defending that stance. It is certainly not a match for Star Wars when it comes to character building and plot construction, but Jupiter Ascending's structural flaws and tonal inconsistencies don't make it the cinematic atrocity it's often made it out to be. They instead mean it's flawed and occasionally head-scratching; however, these issues do not preclude it from having merit and being enjoyable.

     

     

    I could not disagree more, and this is our disconnect I think. If you remove character building and plot construction you no longer have a movie, you have a computer science project with a professional art director at the helm, so we cannot just dismiss those flaws as if they are only a small part of the equation. I prefer the gritty look of Star Wars to the glossy sheen of JA (or Phanton Menace, Clones, etc) everyday of the week and twice on Sunday, as I think the look of SW is an integral part of why it is such an awesome film.

     

     

    And most of the measures you refer to are concerned with a film's impact over an extended period of time. While it's safe to say that JA isn't going to be anywhere near as influential/significant as Star Wars was (I don't think any single film has been more influential), none of us know how it's going to be perceived 40 years down the line. Labyrinth was a box office flop and had rather scathing reviews, yet it's now deemed a classic fantasy adventure film and has new viewers coming to it all the time. Examples like that (and now highly regarded movies such as Blade Runner and Metropolis, which were poorly received upon their initial releases) demonstrate why it's dangerous to use things such as box office and critical reception as gauges of quality and/or merit.

     

     

    Fair enough, but it would take a monumental cult push to ever move a film like this into the pantheon of SW for my money. Becoming a back door favorite like Labyrinth is hardly the same as being in the team picture of most influential films of all time.

     

     

    It's entirely possible to defend Jupiter Ascending and be credible. I'm not saying it's as good as Star Wars, but I am saying that it's not ludicrous to mention both films in the same sentence since they both have a similar sense of scope and visual spectacle.

     

    I do think it is ludicrous :)

     

    You can defend the movie to a point - I think you are doing some serious mental gymnastics to circumnavigate plot inconsistencies and wooden, undeveloped characters by making assumptions about what the Wachowskis may or may not have intended. This idea of scope to me is pretty nebulous, particularly as a merit badge when discussing the quality of a film. Scope is meaningless if you don't understand the basics of constructing a narrative. I could write down the names of 45 planets and 150 characters I just made up, draw a picture of a space ship and say that my "movie" is similar in scope to Star Wars. This is essentially what this film is. The idea of a story without an actual story. That's not a movie. And remember that my beef was with the 2nd opinion dude saying this movie "worked on the level of Star Wars." Can I get a definition of "worked"?

  13. Posted

     

    And they were respectful since we all have different opinions/perceptions of things. That's a good thing and ought to be encouraged - the world would be a very boring place if we all saw everything in the same way.

     

    I am all for the notion of "How can it be bullshit to state a preference?" And of course film is subjective and tastes vary... but come on. By any quantifiable logic - box office, cultural influence, impact on the art and craft of movie making, QUALITY - these are on opposite ends of the furthest ranging spectrum a movie watcher could find.

     

    To make such a statement and then attempt to defend it is to basically offer the opinion that there is no truth, there is no right or wrong, there is no scale upon which things can be measured... and in order for a person to believe these things, they would have to somehow exist ABOVE such a scale, above the notions of right or wrong. They would have to be a deity.

     

    I am respectful of opinions that are credible. You can enjoy this movie all you like, but this is not a debate.

    • Like 1

  14. Posted

    Can we address that the live 2nd opinions dude made the claim that this movie somehow worked on the same level as Star Wars? And the statement was not challenged AT ALL by the gang?

     

    This is the equivalent of saying a half eaten Big Mac from a dumpster works on the same level as the finest high end steak served at the finest high end steak house. Yes, I suppose they are both carbon-based foodstuffs that provide calories to the consumer. Both Star Wars and JA are theatrically released movies.

     

    But they simply do not work on the same level. Not now. Not ever. Not after 1,000 beers. I found this to be a profoundly troubling statement that should have ended the 2nd opinion on the spot. Zouks simply says, "leave the studio now" and we all go on with the podcast.

     

    This aggression cannot stand, man.

    • Like 1

  15. Posted

     

    My question is, and I think it applies to your Lucasian theory, did The Matrix engender so much Hollywood goodwill that, despite their seeming inability to match it's success either creatively or financially, the Wachowski's are pretty much able to continue and write their own ticket? I mean, aside from the first Matrix movie, what have they done to to warrant a movie with a budget of $176,00,000 and carte blanche to do whatever they want? I mean, I may be mistaken, but I don't even think The Matrix was much of a hit at the time... From what I remember, and I could be completely wrong, it did okay box office, but gained most of its traction from DVD sales (which was a new-ish technology at the time).

     

    I think they may be running out of the goodwill that got Jupiter Ascending green lit, as you point out. For the record, I thought Cloud Atlas was an awesome idea that was not put on the screen in a successful way. From BoxOfficeMojo (all grosses domestic, as who actually makes money off international distribution rights is a murky, impossible to know quagmire), here are the numbers:

     

    Matrix - 63 mil budget, grossed 171.5 mil - huge hit

    Matrix Reloaded - 150 mil budget, grossed 281.5 mil - hit

    Matrix Revolutions - 150 mil budget, grossed 139.3 mil - failure

    Speed Racer - 120 mil budget, grossed 44 mil - massive failure

    Cloud Atlas - budget unknown, grossed 27.1 mil - massive failure

    Jupiter Ascending - 176 mil budget, grossed 47.4 mil - massive failure

     

    The rule of thumb is the studio makes ~55% of the gross take, so you need to double your production budget to be a profitable movie in the US, and that is not accounting for marketing dollars spent. Granted this does not factor in DVD sales, TV rights, merchandise, tie-ins with corporate sponsors (get those Wolfie Bic Mac Meals while they're hot!), etc.

    • Like 1

  16. Posted

    The only good thing I can say about the Wachowskis at this point is they swing for the fences and don't just adapt material with a built-in fan base.

     

    But I get a very Lucas-y vibe now in that I suspect the Matrix, like Episodes IV-VI, benefited greatly from other, more talented people shepherding the amazing idea along the way. Left to their own devices, we get this incomprehensible pile of steaming horse shit.

    • Like 3

  18. Posted

    Sorry, by "it" above I meant I have seen several Rifftrax screenings. Sharknado 2, King Kong, a couple of Christmas movies, Birdemic. All very fun - imagine if Paul, Jason, and June scripted their discussions ahead of time to drop the maximum number of obscure pop culture references into their jokes. This is akin to that.

    • Like 2

  19. Posted

    Rifftrax is awesome - if you liked MST3K, it is a no brainer that you will love it. It is the same crew (Mike though, not Joel) doing the same schtick. And if you don't like MST3K, I don't really know what to tell you because in the words of the Iron Sheik, you are rice krispie dick jabroni.

     

    I have seen it multiple times and laughed my ass off. I will be at the Omaha screening tomorrow of what you mention (it is simulcast nationwide in theaters) and fully expect it to be outstanding.

    • Like 2

  20. Posted

    Repost from the minisode discussion.

     

    LOVED this episode, but not enough was made of the utter disregard for collateral damage.

     

    When the FBI raids Dietrich's house to recapture the fugitive Troy-Archer, they wantonly fire - unprovoked - into his house with a fucking HAIL of bullets. This is after we see a POV shot from a sniper rifle where the FBI can clearly see a child and half a dozen or so people who are neither Troy-Archer nor Deitrich. And no care is paid to potential civilians in this ritzy LA neighborhood.

     

    After this, not only would Archer-Troy not be named Time's Man of the Year, he and his entire team and his superiors would be arrested, Congressional hearings would be called, trials would be held, etc. Hell, even at David Koresh's compound they waited for days/weeks before anything happened.

     

    Alternate pairing: Keanu Reeves and Matt McConaughey in "Southern Accents, I Guess / Off"

    • Like 2

  22. Posted

    So... many... slow... motion.... shots. Enough already, John Woo.

     

    Somehow I own the DVD of this movie, even though I am fairly certain I only ever saw it in the theater. Regardless, this is a masterpiece of preposterous, insane action movies.

     

    I think we should save full discussion for after the episode, but one thing cannot wait. When the FBI raids Dietrich's house to recapture the fugitive Troy-Archer, they wantonly fire - unprovoked - into his house with a fucking HAIL of bullets. This is after we see a POV shot from a sniper rifle where the FBI can clearly see a child and half a dozen or so people who are neither Troy-Archer nor Deitrich. And no care is paid to potential civilians in this ritzy LA neighborhood.

     

    After this, not only would Archer-Troy not be named Time's Man of the Year, he and his entire team and his superiors would be arrested, Congressional hearings would be called, trials would be held, etc. Hell, even at David Koresh's compound they waited for days/weeks before anything happened.

    • Like 2

  24. Posted

    Julianne Hough ain't that much, but dammit if Josh Dumahel (sp?) isn't charming, like they said. I kind of think of him as rom-com Timothy Olyphant.

     

    I have to take a little Delores Umbridge with this comment and with the take of our usually reliable hosts. Allow me to drop an SAT analogy on you:

     

    Josh Duhamel:Timothy Olyphant

     

    as

     

    Stefan Urquel (the "cool" one):Denzel Washington

     

    The gap between what Duhamel is trying to do and what Olyphant simply has by virtue of charisma and magnetism cannot be overstated.

     

    I simply cannot abide Josh Duhamel's performance in this movie being called anything other than the acting equivalent of tapioca pudding. The only explanation for Paul and Jason's reaction to this movie is that Jason's illness caused some sort of Monkey Shines level brain interference/swapping while the pod was being recorded. Did a school bus filled with 10th grade girls pass by the studio at the exact moment the recording began?

    • Like 1

  25. Posted

    I haven't been able to meaningfully contribute to this board this week because I cannot recover from Jason liking this movie. Not HDTGM, Fair Game-type liking, but actual like liking.

     

    This is so unfathomable to me that I am questioning everything I know, or thought I knew.

     

    To quote Zooks from virtually every other episode, "This. Movie. Was. Garbage."

    • Like 2
×