CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Film Critic Catch-All
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Film Critic Catch-All - Page 67

post #3301 of 9333

It could be worse. I read my kids Palahniuk's 'Guts". (don't contact the authorities, I am kidding)

post #3302 of 9333
Even Breakfast of Champions has a great deal of empathy for its madman. And obviously for Trout.

Even just the use of 'So it goes' in Slaughterhouse drips with irony. It's mournful, but not dismissive.
post #3303 of 9333

So outta rep.

post #3304 of 9333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post

So outta rep.

It's cool. I know you like my posts.
post #3305 of 9333
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3nnui View Post

It could be worse. I read my kids Palahniuk's 'Guts". (don't contact the authorities, I am kidding)
I never recovered from that story. My roommate had me read it in college. Yikes.
post #3306 of 9333

Here's what great criticism/reporting looks like. From Joe Bob Briggs' alter ego John Bloom.

 

http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/they-came-they-sawed/

post #3307 of 9333
I think when you say 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilTwin View Post
 

Here's what great criticism/reporting looks like. From Joe Bob Briggs' alter ego John Bloom.

 

http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/they-came-they-sawed/

 

Joe Bob Briggs and Vern are the only two people who have been able to consistently pull off "character-based film criticism/comedy." Maybe Neil Cumstock. 

post #3308 of 9333
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilTwin View Post
 

Here's what great criticism/reporting looks like. From Joe Bob Briggs' alter ego John Bloom.

 

http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/they-came-they-sawed/

 

Thanks for this. Great read.

post #3309 of 9333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

 

Maybe Neil Cumstock. 

 

It helps that "Neil" wrote only a handful of reviews, spaced sometimes months/years apart. And they were relatively short.

post #3310 of 9333

It's kind of ironic that people who are misreading FCH piece on BLACK MIRROR are quick to say that he's misreading the show. 

 

I don't actually agree with him, but sensationalist headline aside (Which he then tries to walk back) I see the point he's making, which is that a lot of episodes end in a way that doesn't support the thesis of the show. In some cases I don't think he's wrong, in other ones I do. Though the show isn't 'about' technology, quite a few end in a way that seems to say "argh if it wasn't for this damned technology". Though I will say as someone who doesn't usually have trouble reading his stuff, that was a chore to get through.

post #3311 of 9333

I guess I would ask why "if it wasn't for this damned technology" is an invalid point to make. What's wrong with a cautionary tale? Black Mirror episodes are more often about ways technology could develop into something monstrous rather than how it's monstrous at the current moment. People become very defensive about this, thinking the show is finger-wagging about owning iPhones or something, but I just don't see it at all. Brooker's position, broadly speaking, is: technology progresses, and one must be vigilant about how that progression unfolds. It's hardly a novel position. If one is going to yell, "oh, how cynical!" at Brooker, you also have to yell it at people like Arthur C. Clarke. He didn't devise HAL or the Three Laws of Robotics to make you feel guilty about using a word processor. He was just looking down the line.

post #3312 of 9333
But Warren, that's heresy in the Church of Futurism! Something something do you want to go back to medieval dentistry something something Plato thought the same thing millennia ago righteous indignation!
post #3313 of 9333

I think the thesis of the show is "technology won't fix humanity's problems, because human foibles will always win out in the end," which many, if not all, of the episodes of the first two seasons support. 

post #3314 of 9333
I know the conversation has moved on, and rightly so, but it's so weird that there is a new Marvel Studios film released and both Drew McWeeny and Devin Faraci are out of the picture....
post #3315 of 9333

Drew's too busy posting tweets about the recent announcement of Tom Hardy starring in a Josh Trank Capone movie, seeing as he hates both of those guys (well, he hates Hardy more, of course).

post #3316 of 9333
I hadn't heard of that. That was a short stint in director jail.
post #3317 of 9333

Yeah, I thought he was done for good but it seems not.

 

Weird that Hardy is going to go from playing one of Britain's best known gangsters (the Kray twins in last year's Legend) to playing one of America's best known gangsters (not to mention he had a tv role in Peaky Blinders this year as a gangster). The guy must love playing criminals!

post #3318 of 9333
Thread Starter 

Breakfast of Champions has Vonnegut going into his own book. When a character starts looking at him too closely, Vonnegut makes the phone ring.

 

That nullifies all arguments.

post #3319 of 9333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post
 

Just want to say I agree about AHOV. I also like Mike D'Angelo's Scenic Routes column. He might be the snootiest of the snooty sometimes, but I really like his writing even when I disagree with him. His work has turned me on to a lot of work that I loved, as well as a fair amount of stuff that I hated. But isn't that what you want from someone who writes about film?

A couple of days after I posted this, D'Angelo posted a Scenic Routes about The Thing where he says Rob Bottin's fx have aged poorly and Carpenter isn't a great horror director. Bah.

I want to meet everyone in this thread complaining about Vonnegut so I can throw eggs at them. Overlord complaining because Vonnegut is too negative and pessimistic for him is fucking hilarious. I've met Baby Boomers with more self-awareness.

post #3320 of 9333
D'Angelo drives me bonkers.
post #3321 of 9333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

D'Angelo drives me bonkers.

#NotAllD'Angelos

post #3322 of 9333

I like reading Mike D'Angelo, but I don't do it to tell whether I am going to like a movie or not.  I wouldn't call him snobby so much as an odd duck.  He just seems to have a very unique approach to how he views a film.

post #3323 of 9333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post
 

Drew's too busy posting tweets about the recent announcement of Tom Hardy starring in a Josh Trank Capone movie, seeing as he hates both of those guys (well, he hates Hardy more, of course).


I believe Hardy has wanted to do a Capone project for years. I think I remember him talking about it in interviews back in 2012 or so.

 

Josh Trank is the man to bring this project to life, undoubtedly. The real Capone story began when he was a teenager, acclimating to his new powers in painful and awkward fashion.

 

A standout scene in the 1st act is when teenage Capone presents his big Crime Project at the school Crime Faire.

post #3324 of 9333
Richard Brody:
Quote:
In general, I think that the best way to deal with an unsatisfying ending to a good movie is simply to ignore it—mentally to give the movie the ending that you’d prefer it to have. Endings are artifices, especially in movies, where the happy ending is a convention so deeply ingrained in mass entertainment that the unhappy ending has become a similarly absurd convention of art-house productions.
post #3325 of 9333

Makes me want to see the FEVER PITCH he's talking about...

 

NO DVD???

GET OUTTA HEEEEERE!!!

 

(what about bleu'raaay???)

post #3326 of 9333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTyres View Post


#NotAllD'Angelos

This is the best thing.
 

Returning to Faraci, I watched Sinister today and was curious if Devin reviewed the movie. He did, and I agree with most of his points on the film, but I found this quote odd:
 

"Ethan Hawke, rat faced and swaddled in big sweaters like a terminal patient constantly chilled to his bones..."
 

I recall him also calling Bradley Cooper rat faced numerous times, among other things. For someone who was quite insightful, he was so fucking petty.

post #3327 of 9333
Quote:

Originally Posted by taka_spark View Post

 

I recall him also calling Bradley Cooper rat faced numerous times, among other things. For someone who was quite insightful [sic], he was so fucking petty.

 

Forget famous actors, he used to childishly belittle, curse at, or name-call chewers right here on these boards.  As a moderator! 

post #3328 of 9333
To be fair I did always think Cooper was kind of rat-faced. I've thought Brad Pitt was monkey-faced all the way back to Thelma and Louise too. Daniel Craig looks like a pug. Hugh Jackman's slightly-too-small eyes remind me of a sloth. I get why all these guys are considered attractive and I still enjoy gazing upon them, but none of them ever had that Chris Pine/Chris Hemsworth/Chris Evans/Johnny Depp carved-by-god dreamboat thing going on.

Then again, I'm a pretty bad person too, so if the shoe fits ...
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
you must acquit.

I mean, you can't make an omelette without ...
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
counting all your chickens.
post #3329 of 9333

"Hot men are uggo, would not bone."

post #3330 of 9333
I would definitely be a bottom for Chris Hemsworth.

And I'm as straight as the shortest distance between two points...
post #3331 of 9333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post
 

A couple of days after I posted this, D'Angelo posted a Scenic Routes about The Thing where he says Rob Bottin's fx have aged poorly and Carpenter isn't a great horror director. Bah.

 

It seems like both D'Angelo and Hulk have been leaning in the "controversy=hits" formula in recent months. I won't say there's no value in going against the grain, of course there is, but there's a very "how do ya like them apples?" tone to it all. In the space of like, two months, Hulk has written essays strongly against Civil War, Stranger Things and Black Mirror. I even agree with some of those assertions, but he's definitely in love a "come at me bro!" stance (and then a "whoa bros, I didn't mean it like that!" stance when the bros come too hard).

post #3332 of 9333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post
 

A couple of days after I posted this, D'Angelo posted a Scenic Routes about The Thing where he says Rob Bottin's fx have aged poorly and Carpenter isn't a great horror director. Bah.

I want to meet everyone in this thread complaining about Vonnegut so I can throw eggs at them. Overlord complaining because Vonnegut is too negative and pessimistic for him is fucking hilarious. I've met Baby Boomers with more self-awareness.

 

The problem for me is there's just no consistency with his takes. He hates the artifice of The Thing's effects work, but recently defended the same type of theatricality in the city sets of Jacques Tourneur's Cat People. 

 

I don't think being cool on The Thing is nuts if you don't like monster movies (I do, so I love it). It's a mechanically perfect monster movie, but it doesn't have anything to offer someone like D'Angelo. 

post #3333 of 9333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Peace View Post

It seems like both D'Angelo and Hulk have been leaning in the "controversy=hits" formula in recent months. I won't say there's no value in going against the grain, of course there is, but there's a very "how do ya like them apples?" tone to it all. In the space of like, two months, Hulk has written essays strongly against Civil War, Stranger Things and Black Mirror. I even agree with some of those assertions, but he's definitely in love a "come at me bro!" stance (and then a "whoa bros, I didn't mean it like that!" stance when the bros come too hard).

I'm surprised so many people get him wrong when every third paragraph contains the words, "NOW DON'T GET HULK WRONG ...".
post #3334 of 9333

Completely serious: anyone contending that Bottin's effects have aged poorly is automatically put into the IGNORE category by me. His work in The Thing remains better than 90% of the stuff done in the intervening 34 years, practical or digital.

post #3335 of 9333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

Completely serious: anyone contending that Bottin's effects have aged poorly is automatically put into the IGNORE category by me. His work in The Thing remains better than 90% of the stuff done in the intervening 34 years, practical or digital.


 

post #3336 of 9333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post


 

Are you insinuating that one of the Scorpion King's mystical abilities was not Blurry Face (+2 to Defense and Intimidate rolls), but instead the power of a CGI so subpar, it became the benchmark of bad?

Because frankly, sir, I am shocked, shocked to hear that The Mummy Returns, slayer of Brendan Fraser's career, could also become the golden standard for terrible. How was such a power wrought on this earth? Was it an actually mummy curse?
Edited by MrTyres - 10/30/16 at 8:04pm
post #3337 of 9333

GYAAAAUUUGHHH!!!!

post #3338 of 9333
Goddamn...I remember that being bad but....HOLY SHIT. PS1 graphics!

And I still kinda enjoy that dumb movie!
post #3339 of 9333

It's so funny to think we got an actually sort of decent movie out of the Scorpion King character, and then that likable badass hero got turned into a fucking gross monster freak thing.

 

OK.

post #3340 of 9333

THE WHOLE WORLD IS A STAGE!

post #3341 of 9333
I like The Mummy Returns more than The Scorpion King.


Put me outta my misery..
post #3342 of 9333

The Mummy Returns is dreadful. Skipped The Scorpion King because of it.

post #3343 of 9333
"The Mummy" is pretty good.
post #3344 of 9333
The Mummy is pretty good. The Mummy Returns is just as pretty good to me!

It's that third Mummy that caused me to walk out..
post #3345 of 9333

The Mummy still holds up after what, 17 years?  Stephen Sommers nearly made a film as lean and scrappy as early Spielberg.  Sadly, it was not meant to be.

post #3346 of 9333
17 YEARS Jesus Christ
post #3347 of 9333

The Mummy... the true Indy 4.

post #3348 of 9333
I rewatched The Mummy 3 recently. Doesn't hold up.
post #3349 of 9333

I sold Brendan Fraser a pack of cigarettes last weekend.  Nice guy!

 

I can't remember a thing about Mummy 3 except that Maria Bello was ALL WRONG to play Rachel Weisz!  SO SO WRONG.

post #3350 of 9333
I broke my last phone on the Mummy ride. Fun ride!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Film Critic Catch-All