I find a lot of American comedies are like that. I dunno if they're meant to display characters I'm clearly superior to and can thus mock - which is embarrassing and unsightly - or if they're trying to say that I'm like those characters and can commiserate - which is condescending and wrong - because they're way off-base with both.Originally Posted by Xercies
Sorta like Ruben Bolling's Dinkle the Unlovable Loser except entirely without satire.
Watched 30 Minutes or Less last night. Thought it was good fun. Also agree with Nalano and Xercies above about big budget comedies, this certainly didn't fit those dodgy morals. Danny McBride is just fantastic.
Comedy belongs on the small rather than the large screen IMO. And I tend not to like American comedies -- that is to say, American productions pitched primarily as comedies. I find myself laughing much more readily at series like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and The West Wing and films like Sideways than at, say, Seinfeld or Happy Gilmore.
Anyway.
I've neglected my filmic duties these past few months, but next week I should hopefully be seeing both Carnage and Coriolanus. The former has been on my 'to see' list for ages, but I only recently heard of the latter: "Ralph Fiennes does Shakespeare by way of Modern Warfare". xD
EDIT: Trailer if anyone is interested:
Last edited by Rii; 15-03-2012 at 03:16 PM.
Were you watching Seinfeld when it came out, or ten years later when everybody was copying its motifs? Personally, I loved Seinfeld because it was a loving satire. "We're awful, but we still love us."
I agree that most movies don't really gain much from being on the big screen, but most movies don't have larger-than-life special effects. So that leaves out not only comedies but dramas.
John Carter was probably one of those movies that I watched recently which, while mildly entertaining before the surprising twist, had some beautiful art direction marred by some flat and clichéd scriptwriting.
I knew I should've picked a different example. Replace Seinfeld in previous post with The Nanny or something if you like. All I know is that I've seen a few episodes over the years and didn't see anything in them to encourage me to seek out more.
Re: big screen/small screen, I meant small screen as in a serial television production, not the screen size per se. It's probably a formative thing, most of my exposure to humour as a kid came from books, British comedies, and Australian skit shows and current affairs satires. Whereas most comedy films I've seen would be American. So its probably a purely associational thing. Or maybe its about the length of the feature film format against a preference (learned or otherwise) for comedy in bite-size pieces? I dunno. Hmm, the psychology of humour... Could be an interesting research field. :P
Last edited by Rii; 17-03-2012 at 04:22 AM.
It'll be hard to figure out an example because half of them are New York writers squeeing about New York, and the other half are Los Angeles writers squeeing about Los Angeles.
The Hunger Game
Drive. I'm probably last person to ask about 'style'( since I like anime, Warhammer 40k and stuff) and I don't even see movies often. But, well, I enjoyed this movie. Some nice music there. And characters, for once I enjoyed something with an unsympathetic protagonist( seriously, the guy is a psycho and a clear menace to society, some people wanted him to survive?).
Last edited by coldvvvave; 23-03-2012 at 09:28 AM.
싸이보그지만 괜찮아 (I'm a Cyborg, But That's OK). I wanted to like this one by 박찬욱 (Park Chan-wook), but I have to wonder if it wouldn't have been better as a fast-paced short film rather than as the almost two hour long movie it is. There were some genuinely great and funny moments here, but the pace in between those was often slow with little in the way of an overarching plot to keep it going. It looks great, though, which, I suppose, was to be expected.
Barton Fink, just rewatched it. I figured out what was in the box: nothing.
Most recent was Hobo with a Shotgun. It was fun, but it's no Machete.
The Medallion of the Imperial Psychopath, a Napoleon: Total War AAR
For the Emperor!, a Total War: Shogun 2: Fall of the Samurai AAR
Just watched Seven Samurai for the first time. It was excellent. Early on Kikuchiyo had a tendency to get on my nerves, but I grew to like the character.
I grew up watching stuff like The Magnificent Seven (which I liked as a kid, but haven't seen in years so I have no idea how it holds up), and while I knew it was an adaptation, I'd just never gotten around to watching it. Glad I finally did.
Heh, yeah 三船 敏郎 (Toshirō Mifune) is quite the character. His son is, too - though he hasn't been in nearly as many movies.
I liked the way the viewpoint changed from the ostensibly innocent farmers to that of the rōnin, who ended up making the most sacrifices in what seemed to have been a pretty poor trade-off.
I you liked Seven Samurai then I'd recommed Yojimbo by the same director. It's the film Fistful of Dollars is based on and has the same great cinematic feel the Seven Samurai has.
Machete wasn't really a gore flick I believe, it also didn't become a sci-fi at the end. :PMost recent was Hobo with a Shotgun. It was fun, but it's no Machete.
Steam | Origin: xRavelle | Skype: TheRavelle | PSN: Voltburn | Watch me struggle through my backlog
Exactly these two DVDs (Seven Samurai & Yojimbo) are lying next to my television since weeks, waiting to be watched on a rainy evening. Sadly, the weather has been too nice for quite a while now.
So I saw The Hunger Games over the weekend, going into it with absolutely zero prior knowledge other than the fact that it existed.
It's a good 'popcorn flick'. There's some good exploration of the society as a whole before going into the second half and arguably main part of the film. I believe the books were originally written for teenagers and it certainly comes off in the film too. It leads to the inevitable comparison with Battle Royale. In many respects, they're the same film. I would argue that THG is a better film to watch, simply being more entertaining as a whole, but BR does so many things better, not least because of the age rating that it had.
HG is a fair length, but doesn't really out-stay its welcome. It has a few flaws, but none that really detract from the narrative. I think the biggest criticism against it is the camera work. A lot of the time it's being presented as being from the first-person perspective, so it utilises Shaky Cam a fair bit. In particular, some of the action sequences get really jumpy. I didn't have too much of a problem with it simply because of the precedent in the rest of the film with showing off perspective, but it did make it a bit hard to see what was going on at times.
Altogether, it was a fun, well-made film. Nothing particularly special. The Muppets is still better in my book. I'll wait and see if it can hold onto that through the coming season.
Incidentally, I caught Dogma on telly over the weekend too. Pretty damn funny and very enjoyable, maybe a little more so than THG. The cast was great, especially who played God.
Unpopular opinion: I preferred Hunger Games over Battle Royale. I didn't care about the characters in BR. Just didn't. Wasn't much left after that to really engage with. Totally agree that Hunger Games should have went for the higher rating though - To me it's meant to be a deeply unpleasant, visceral experience. Shakycam was good at the beginning when the intent was to relay her disorientation, but you're meant to feel sick about the games, so hiding the nasty stuff away counteracts the point.
Yesterday i watched Moon from 2009,very good movie. Today i'm going with Jackie Brown.
... I take the lives of a few to protect the lives of many. I commit acts of war to preserve the greater peace. I take no joy in killing, but make no mistake; I'll do what needs to be done. Because it's my job. It's my duty. My name is Sam Fisher, and I am a Splinter Cell.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
