The Official Movie Thread

[CiG]

Fury Road's negative points to me are Tom Hardy, he was shit, no getting around it, couldn't even pull off an Australian accent and the music was really cookie-cutter and shitty.

 

[Master_Yoda77]

Jurassic World was 10/11. All 10 of those going to Bryce-Dallas Howard's firecrotch and delicious physique.

 

[CiG]

Bryce-Dallas Howard's firecrotch

I gotta fucking see this shit maaan.

 

[rms]

MAD MAX was just a wild, visceral experience. no shitty backstory or audience handholding, lovingly detailed visually, crazy set piece choreography (well, the whole film is basically one set piece), pleasant subversion of gender roles n shit. and it's funny and weird and almost totally removed from blockbuster conventions. music could've been better and some of the designs stray into terry gilliam territory on occasion but on the whole i loved it, never seen anything like it. can't remember the last time an action movie had such personality.

Well there wasn't a shitty backstory because there was a shitty story. I don't get how you can say it removed blockbuster conventions, it was a prototypical male action flick with a woman playing a male lead. I did think it was terribly shot though, kind of irritating.

What do you about "such personality" ?

 

[CiG]

All these fucking losers saying it was better than the first two are beyond me too.

 

[Master_Yoda77]

I bet Joe Dirt 2 and Paul Blart 2 are better films than Mad Max.

 

[-CC-]

Well yeah, Paul Blart 2 is looking like it will be on par with Godfather Part 2. I really like the new direction they are taking the series, with that gritty serious look at blue-collar America. Also glad that they are making the entire film black and white.



EDIT: You weren't fucking around, Paul Blart 2 is actually a thing? And it's already been released? Here I was taking the piss...

 

[CiG]

I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this, it's a 2014 New Zealand found footage horror comedy film about a group of vampires who live together in Wellington, tons of dry humour and practical SFX.

 

[no country for old wainds]

Well there wasn't a shitty backstory because there was a shitty story. I don't get how you can say it removed blockbuster conventions, it was a prototypical male action flick with a woman playing a male lead. I did think it was terribly shot though, kind of irritating.

What do you about "such personality" ?

the 'story' is heightened and ridiculous in a way that's really fun to me *shrug* but, i mean, george miller doesn't give a shit about story, this movie is all about sensory overload and craziness. it's basically just three manic, intense, breakneck set pieces with barely any chance to breathe or reflect. the way characters interact is totally off-kilter and deranged, and its world seems to stretch beyond the boundaries of the film, as though this is just a tiny part of a much huger mythos. it's bursting with all these weird visual details many of which aren't even explained. it seems like it was really thoughtfully designed... but by an insane person. it's metal as all hell.

there's also tons of fun black humour both visually and in the dialogue. and i've always liked how miller shoots, he has his own style that wouldn't satisfy a lot of the major producers but it has an eccentric charm and kind of ragged beauty imo.

also, i'd argue that the male lead was max and he was more or less sidelined in what's promoted as his own story by a clearly more competent female. i wouldn't exactly call it feminist but it's still trying to be a little subversive, the sniper scene makes that pretty blatant. even if it's a prototypical 'male lead' role (and i find that idea a little troublesome anyway - why should males have ownership of these kinds of roles?), a woman getting the chance to play that role in a series that's about and named after a man is still unprecedented and cool.

 

[no country for old wainds]

in other news i saw JURASSIC WORLD which was not great, but as a huge JURASSIC PARK fan i admit i dug a lot of the references. actually, the film was generally at its best when it was most like the original; the best moments were the smaller scale, atmospheric bits with only a couple of characters present. loved when the two boys stumble across the cars, it was like suddenly and unexpectedly walking into my childhood. the narrative and climax were utterly inane though, and the dialogue and characterisations made the original seem like shakespeare (which is saying something because those weren't great either). more importantly, there was also nothing like the same amount of thought put into the set pieces; spielberg mastered the art of creating and releasing tension, and this film didn't really understand how he made so many of his scenes iconic.

 

[rms]

the 'story' is heightened and ridiculous in a way that's really fun to me *shrug* but, i mean, george miller doesn't give a shit about story, this movie is all about sensory overload and craziness. it's basically just three manic, intense, breakneck set pieces with barely any chance to breathe or reflect. the way characters interact is totally off-kilter and deranged, and its world seems to stretch beyond the boundaries of the film, as though this is just a tiny part of a much huger mythos. it's bursting with all these weird visual details many of which aren't even explained. it seems like it was really thoughtfully designed... but by an insane person. it's metal as all hell.

Road Warrior and the first Max have a developed storyline, not sure I agree here. I never bothered with Thunderdome because I heard it was terrible, but i've heard Fury Road is most similar to that part of the franchise.

Yes the craziness was weird in such a way that it made me feel like I could only enjoy it as a 12 or 13 year old. Especially the chrome obsession. I know it didn't apply to me so I never really bother arguing against that premise, but it is childish to me. ESpecially the flaming guitar dude.

"world seems to stretch beyond the boundaries of the film" What?

there's also tons of fun black humour both visually and in the dialogue. and i've always liked how miller shoots, he has his own style that wouldn't satisfy a lot of the major producers but it has an eccentric charm and kind of ragged beauty imo.

I think this was much different than the first two max's in terms of cinematography. Style is obviously subjective so I won't argue it, but definitely thought it was irritating with the quick cuts and huge reliance on close-ups (probably to avoid the vast amount of CGI usage)

also, i'd argue that the male lead was max and he was more or less sidelined in what's promoted as his own story by a clearly more competent female. i wouldn't exactly call it feminist but it's still trying to be a little subversive, the sniper scene makes that pretty blatant. even if it's a prototypical 'male lead' role (and i find that idea a little troublesome anyway - why should males have ownership of these kinds of roles?), a woman getting the chance to play that role in a series that's about and named after a man is still unprecedented and cool.

Well she's not more competent, she couldn't even beat him up when he had 1 arm and the other was chained to a 130 lb man!

Sniper scene was so dumb, of course resting a gun on a object is more accurate than shooting standing, but not many people would realize that without actually shooting. And then she shoots a round 3 inches by his ear? So rude..

Still think a woman can be a action-hero in their own way and not mimic a 80s male hero.

 

[Einherjar86]

Mad Max was shot meticulously; every frame was centered so that you actually could follow the action.

There's nothing any more developed about the original film's plot than this one's. It's a revenge plot, plain and simple. Fury Road was a rescue/revenge plot, although we're not given all the details of several characters' back-stories. I found this refreshing and fun because it emphasizes the film's ability to function on immediate plot alone: high-energy, breakneck speed that just propels characters through the various set-pieces.

Also, it moves chiastically, meaning it swings from the opening set-piece through an array of others before swinging back and concluding where it began, albeit with different circumstances. I enjoy this kind of structure because it suggests something illimitable and mysterious about the aphelion, or furthest point from the central location (i.e. the wastes where Max convinces everyone to turn back).

Elements such as the heavy-metal vehicle were clear homages to old-school pulp and low-culture comics, and I thought they were deliciously over-the-top and appropriate. Furthermore, the heavy-metal vehicle fulfills a very specific purpose: it stands in for the original marching bands that accompanied armies into battle. Those are just as "childish" as anything in the movie.

I don't happen to think that Furiosa was more competent than Max, and this is where I think people blew the film out of proportion. It wasn't feminist at all, in fact I could see how it may be construed as simply appropriating feminine stereotypes with a slight twist. Max is necessary for the women to succeed, he convinces them to turn back, and he chooses to leave them at the end. Ultimately, he possesses more agency than Furiosa.

All that said, I think the film was beautifully shot, and I think the score complemented the scenery and action perfectly. I think the plot was necessarily simple and easily accessible, and I think additional details would have cluttered an otherwise engaging film. I don't watch Mad Max films to be intellectually challenged. I watch them to see shit get blown up and bodies get bloodied.

Oh, and finally, the choreography in Fury Road was masterful. So much planning went into that, you could tell in every shot.

 

[SentinelSlain]

It just is better than the first two. The first two weren't important pieces of cinema anyway, they were just effective exploitation. So yes, they're topped by a better piece of exploitation.

 

[no country for old wainds]

^yeah, i concur with all of that i guess (re: einherjer). the sniper scene seemed contrived to suggest that she was more competent than max, but perhaps that isn't supported by the rest of the film.

Yes the craziness was weird in such a way that it made me feel like I could only enjoy it as a 12 or 13 year old. Especially the chrome obsession. I know it didn't apply to me so I never really bother arguing against that premise, but it is childish to me. ESpecially the flaming guitar dude.

i wasn't that fond of the guitar dude, bit too terry gilliam for me. but tbf i think if an action movie can't be enjoyed by 12 year old me it probably isn't very good.

"world seems to stretch beyond the boundaries of the film" What?

i elaborated on that immediately below. what i mean is it feels like you're sampling a much bigger universe that exists beyond what you get to witness, as opposed to that world just being created for this film. there are so many details to the worldbuilding that serve no narrative purpose.

I think this was much different than the first two max's in terms of cinematography. Style is obviously subjective so I won't argue it, but definitely thought it was irritating with the quick cuts and huge reliance on close-ups (probably to avoid the vast amount of CGI usage)

for the record i never mentioned the earlier MAD MAX movies at all, and i wouldn't necessarily call this better than those. i haven't seen them in years, i hope to revisit soon.

 

[rms]

Yeah before Fury Road I haven't seen them in awhile so I rewatched the first two. Much more refreshing, honestly. Sure, their difference is the reliance on car chases and blowing things up, but I wouldn't call either an action film.

there are so many details to the worldbuilding that serve no narrative purpose.

I had a problem with this but if you see it as a positive thing then OK.

There's nothing any more developed about the original film's plot than this one's. It's a revenge plot, plain and simple. Fury Road was a rescue/revenge plot, although we're not given all the details of several characters' back-stories. I found this refreshing and fun because it emphasizes the film's ability to function on immediate plot alone: high-energy, breakneck speed that just propels characters through the various set-pieces.

Well if you condense a film like that almost anything is as simplistic as a action/revenge etc. Not saying any are really that complex or interesting story wise, I think it just works in their low budget ways. People who clamor this is a great film is really strange to me. If someone said this is a good hollywood movie I would say OK no problemo, but to call it a film? Can't really agree there at all.

Elements such as the heavy-metal vehicle were clear homages to old-school pulp and low-culture comics, and I thought they were deliciously over-the-top and appropriate. Furthermore, the heavy-metal vehicle fulfills a very specific purpose: it stands in for the original marching bands that accompanied armies into battle. Those are just as "childish" as anything in the movie.

Well those bands that followed the armies back in the day had a practical purpose, the heavy metal guy did not and definitely was for the weird culture that Miller thinks he attracts with the film. Weird for me, but plenty of other things annoyed me before that.

I don't happen to think that Furiosa was more competent than Max, and this is where I think people blew the film out of proportion. It wasn't feminist at all, in fact I could see how it may be construed as simply appropriating feminine stereotypes with a slight twist. Max is necessary for the women to succeed, he convinces them to turn back, and he chooses to leave them at the end. Ultimately, he possesses more agency than Furiosa.

I'm so glad someone smarter than me said this so now I can feel like a boy genius. Couldn't agree more Ein.

Glad you could make it through your summer reading in time for True Detective episode 1.

 

[TageRyche]

Forgot to mention this before, but I saw Jurassic World.

While it did manage to keep my eyes to the screen with the spectacle of everything going on, the movie was just so good gawd stupid.

It has gotten to the point that when of any of these big events get out of control movies come out, I root for the natural disaster or what have you to win.


Because the people in the movie (or rather the writers of the movie) are too stupid to be left alive to continue their incredible run of insulting even basic human intelligence.

Plot holes galore and the fact that this world seems to exist in a universe where no one has ever seen a disaster movie (even while acknowledging the previous Jurassic Park movies in this film).

And somehow the female lead manages to run the equivalent of at least a half marathon IN HIGH HEELS! Without them breaking or her breaking her ankles? And how does Vincent D'Onofrio deliver an Emmy award quality performance as the Kingpin in the Netflix series Daredevil and then appear in this movie?

Do you smell that? I'm calling BULLSHIT!

I gave it a 5 out of 10 overall on IMDB but mainly because of the effects etc. The story was stupid beyond measure.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Jurassic World was pretty awesome. Had everything I would want in a summer blockbuster movie.
Enjoyed the shit out of it

 

[Einherjar86]

^yeah, i concur with all of that i guess (re: einherjer). the sniper scene seemed contrived to suggest that she was more competent than max, but perhaps that isn't supported by the rest of the film.

That's just my feeling, also. Ultimately, I don't think it did much in terms of gender; if anything, I would say it commented more actively on genre than on gender (which are related, etymologically).

In the old Mad Max films, Max was always having to save damsels in distress (or avenge them). By putting Furiosa in a kind of hero-role, they played around with the genre conventions - not so much with gender conventions, as far as I'm concerned.

Glad you could make it through your summer reading in time for True Detective episode 1.

I still have tons of reading to go, I just thought I'd take a break and see what's going on here. I'm trying to limit my time online. My presence will likely be spotty this summer.

And yes, I'm stoked for True Detective tonight.

 

[no country for old wainds]

People who clamor this is a great film is really strange to me. If someone said this is a good hollywood movie I would say OK no problemo, but to call it a film? Can't really agree there at all.

isn't that kind of a snobbish distinction? lots of the best movies came out of hollywood man, and certainly a lot of the best action movies. it's not like anyone's claiming it's the second coming of tarkovsky anyway.

In the old Mad Max films, Max was always having to save damsels in distress (or avenge them). By putting Furiosa in a kind of hero-role, they played around with the genre conventions - not so much with gender conventions, as far as I'm concerned.

yeah. i guess it doesn't do much to actually reconfigure gender or what it is to be an action hero, but it at least helps to undermine the male monopoly on action movie heroism a little. seemed like a step in the right direction to me for films of this sort, particularly when max is helpless for basically the film's entire first act, a passenger in furiosa's story. the main reason he ended up with more agency may be because this isn't really his story and he can look upon it with the eye of a neutral, he's not imprisoned by it in the same way furiosa is. i don't think that was intended in any case, whereas the emphasis on furiosa struck me as a conscious feminist decision. i think its heart was in the right place even if it wasn't particularly nuanced or revolutionary, and may even have been clumsy.

 

[rms]

Action movies are great and I enjoy them in my own way, but I would never place Aliens or T2 as a top 5 film of all time or anything. Sure as shit not a 8.6 on IMDB or a 98% on RT.

Hollywood definitely has its place for films, Birdman/Machina/Snowpiercer remind me of that there is always a chance for a good film to make it to the mainstrem audience.

And we all need the sort of mindless entertainment, but I think a distinction should be made.

I don't really get how Furiosa does anything more for female hero's that Divergent and Hunger Games series hasn't already done? I see this movie very critically, in an attempt to grasp as the cash draw that is the women hero, and that's pretty crappy.