[This Machine Kills Fascis]

So, is Enter the Void a must see? 'Cause it's still in theaters around here, but I think I'd have a difficult time getting somebody to go with me.
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

:(

I watched it over the Summer.

I just didn't buy that rats could learn kung fu and English and learn art history through cultural osmosis. I don't know why that, specifically, was a problem with me, whereas I'm fine with the origin stories behind most Marvel super heroes.

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

Guys, is Hollow Man worth revisiting? I didn't realize until today that it was a Verhoeven movie.
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

Well, I guess if they ruin Akira, we'll always have James Cameron's long-awaited live-action Battle Angel to look forward to.

Yes, I am being sarcastic.
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

Probably. He's a big fan and been hinting at a movie version for over ten years.

It's as close to him as Avatar, I think. Wikipedia says that he plans to actually complete his version of Battle Angel by 2013, directly after the second Avatar movie. It also says that he was using Avatar to refine the technology that he considers necessary to adapt Battle Angel.

I was a big fan of Cameron as a teenager. Now I'm sort of the opposite. It's not just that Avatar was drivel. Looking back on the movies of his that I loved so much when I was younger, I now see them as vacant action melodramas--all surface, no substance, movies imitating other movies. I'm not trying to start any fights with anyone. That's my opinion, and I'll defend it to the death; but I don't need to convince anyone to hate movies that they love.

Anyway, this is all to say that I think I'll be pretty conflicted about his adaptation of Battle Angel. I was also a big Battle Angel fan as a teenager. I've never revisited the manga or the animation, but I have the feeling that it will hold up. In a way, I'm curious to see how Cameron will adapt the series. I don't enjoy his movies so much, these days, but I'd never accuse him of being a hack; and I think he's making the movies he wants to make to the best of his abilities. In other words, I don't think this would be an Aeon Flux situation. I'd bet on Cameron's Battle Angel to be a bad movie, but I do wonder if there'll be a part of me that will enjoy it just as much as I would have at age fifteen.
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

That movie is sitting on my hard drive. I have no idea when I'll be able to bring myself to watch it.

I actually wish it were playing in theaters. That to me seems like the ideal environment--a dark room full of strangers* all experiencing the same horror and revulsion that you're feeling. You end up feeling both singular and plural. Plus, in the back of my head, I'd always have the feeling that I'm not able to leave (because I had to travel to the theater and pay money), which I think would probably add to the experience. Basically, if it were in theaters, I could strand myself with the movie.


*Personally, I wouldn't bring a friend to that.
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

I saw Turtles Can Fly for the first time last week. I don't really know what to say about it. It may be one of my favorite movies of all time.

I saw Ghobadi's latest film (No One Knows About Persian Cats) a while ago. While the subject matter (indie music in Iran) was pretty interesting, the film itself seemed amateurish and overly precious. I was pretty surprised to see that the director's earlier work is so brilliant.

This is one of my favorite scenes from the movie:


_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

I just assumed they were using it in the colloquial sense, like that time they said that Obama's healthcare bill was grody to the max.
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

I think it's more like, "I'm going to take my ball (that none of you wanted to play with) and go home! Also, I was going to bring further terrible balls, but now I won't! That will show you! That will show you all!"
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

Sometimes when I'm down I think of someone accidentally renting the wrong Crash, and it cheers me up.
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

What do you mean by "unrelenting"? Are you talking about the way both Hausu and Dracula use dissolves, super-imposition, and pseudo-Expressionist set design to bombard the viewer with abrupt shifts between time, place, and reality/fantasy?

Sorry for the word salad. I guess it's a product of trying to nail down unweildly abstract ideas, quickly.

Are you essentially looking for dense image salads?
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

Huh. I'm actually a little surprised to see so much Mr. Fox love. I didn't really dig it.

And I definitely wouldn't say it's better than Pixar movies in "every way." I'm honestly not that big a fan of Pixar, but the craft in a Pixar movie is definitely more impressive to me than the craft displayed in FMF. Honestly, the claymation seemed amateurish to me, though maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about.
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

Ugh, why did I bother writing all that? The comments section below the article says as much and more. And yeah remote, I know: you probably just meant you're slightly more interested in Rand's writing than you were before. I'm just annoyed by how terrible the rhetoric in that article is.

Here's something interesting I found it the comments section:

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

That doesn't surprise me. I'll leave the Rand bashing to people who are more familiar with her work. I was more insulted by his shitty arguments than his Randian allegiances. Even if you grant the guy his faulty premises, the article is nonsense from every angle.

Christ, I hate Swiss cheese arguments that are phrased as if they're convincing. Seeing the comments section was heartening. Nobody seems to be convinced (except for those who already drank the Kool Aid, of course).
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

Re: FMF/Claymation in general

Yeah, to me all the little, moving hairs and slightly awkward animation (which made the line readings come off as staid and self-contained--as if the actors weren't really interacting [similar to a video game, actually]) were a major turn off for me.

Maybe Anderson was specifically going for a Rankin & Bass look, or maybe he had some other more obscure cultural reference in mind. But to me it didn't harken to anything in particular; it just looked like shoddy animation.

I don't think the big budget clay animated movies of the last twenty years (The Nightmare Before Christmas, James and the Giant Peach, Coraline, etc.) look overly slick or as if they're trying to mimic computer animation. They still seem distinctly clay animated to me. Honestly, I feel that if Anderson had just let the animators do their thing, then we could have seen some real virtuosity in the service of a story that a lot of people seem to like.

I dunno. Sorry if I'm raining on some parades. I mean, I definitely think that sometimes music production can get "too slick," but with claymation we so rarely get to see a studio given the opportunity to push the envelope. And from what I've heard, clay animators are always chomping at the bit to prove themselves. I guess if the nostalgia factor worked on you guys, then Anderson achieved his aims, but to me it just seems misguided.

But hey, since we're talking about claymation, here's a short called "Madame Tutli-Putli." This is kind of what I thought FMF might be like when I first heard of the project.

<object><param></param><param></param><param></param></object><br><font>Watch Madame Tutli-Putli - C. Lavis and M. Szczerbowski in Animation&nbsp;&nbsp;|&nbsp;&nbsp;View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com</font>
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

Good point!
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

The Best
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

Just came back from the new X-Men movie. I really didn't like it much at all. I left the theater feeling as if I had been assaulted by mediocrity. This is one of those situations in which I won't be able to talk about the movie without spewing negativity everywhere.

Edit: After seeing a Hollywood action movie for the first time in a long time, I can appreciate even more the way Akira punishes the viewer for their power fantasies.

Edit Edit: Oh shit, I forgot to include the review of the guy sitting behind me.

Here goes: "That was fucking bad ass. Provocative."
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

Sorry evnvnvnvnv, I wasn't really responding to you directly, and my intention wasn't to say, "You got it wrong, you fool!" I just have strong opinions about these two guys as comedians (Jeong seems like a decent guy in interviews [he was on WTF a while ago]), and--well--I'd just come back from seeing a movie that I really hated, so it was hard for me to keep the nerd rage venom out of my voice.

As far as what you just said, I usually don't blame the actor--not out of some kind of moral stance; I just don't think to, usually. I mean, I'm not really that attached to most actors, and yeah, sometimes even big name actors actually have to make deals with studios that involve doing a shitty family friendly movie in order to finance a more artful project. Plus, film actors literally get work catch as catch can for their entire careers; they never really have consistent employment. And even a great actor is generally offered fewer roles as they get older. I think even relatively big actors feel insecure about their careers most of the time.

On the other hand, I feel fine criticizing a movie as if it is an entity in itself or criticizing a director or producer for the quality of a movie or criticizing an actor for their performance. If someone does a bad job I think it's fair game to point it out. That's not to say that I would make broad decisions about who they are as a person, or whatever. I think it's fine for someone to take a job for the money, but I'd prefer that they do the best they can with what they have. And I feel fine judging them as an artist, depending on the work they put into the world. Zack Snyder mostly makes movies that I find objectionable. I'm not going to accuse him of being a hack, because he seems to really care about his projects. But in a way that makes it worse. I'm definitely going to call him a terrible film maker. Similarly if an actor does a terrible job, I'll call them on it. And if they repeatedly choose bad roles I'll definitely start to question their (or their agent's) judgement.

That said, I'm totally with everyone who's tired of Jack Black. I can think of anything genuinely funny or interesting that he's done in the last ten years. And I think Micheal Cera and Galifianakis are both in danger of getting the same reputation. I think all these guys are talented, and they have fairly original comic sensibilities that--if seen over and over again across many roles--end up seeming obvious and "played out." The thing is that early in the careers the were nobodies who had to take whatever roles they could get to survive. They had nothing to lose by taking any role, because nobody knew who they were. It's also worth noting that all three actors were in either the acting or the comedy/performance business for at least ten years, even before the comedy nerd community was aware of them. But it only takes one or two roles to make someone a sudden celebrity. And once everyone knows who you are, if you start taking similar roles in mediocre movies public opinion on you can shift very quickly. I don't think these guys were prepared for it, and I think it was/is an adjustment.

Jack Black has clearly gone a bit too far in the hack actor, broad comedy, same character over and over direction. I'm not going to say that he's an empty husk, but he's definitely squandered some of his credibility. Personally, I kind of like David Cross's style of doing things. I heard him say in an interview something along the lines of, "Well, I could tour around the country, doing shit shows at Zanies and The Chuckle Hut in front of a bunch of drunks and be miserable for a decent chunk of change, or I could be treated well and be paid an inordinate amount of money to be in Alvin and the Chipmunks 3 and use that money to continue to do the projects I want to do." That makes a lot of sense to me, and I think Cross gets away with it in the harsh court of public opinion, because he usually takes minor roles in major movies and he often tends to do them well. The danger for Galifianakis and Cera is when they start starring in terrible broad comedies and having less time to do good work on the side--that's the Jack Black path.

Sorry to go on and on about this, but this is actually a topic I've been thinking about a lot lately.
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

My primary disappointment (among many) with First Class was that they manufactured a bombastic conflict between good and evil to center the plot around. The relationship between Xavier and Magneto is enough for me, and I went in curious to see how the basics of the X-Men started. Personally, I don't need a big baddie for the "good guys" to fight against. I would have been perfectly happy to see their relationship explored in detail. From the TV trailer, I assumed that they'd both end up working for the government in some way, which made sense enough. But pretty much every other mutant character in the film felt like a distraction for me.

Obviously, the movie I'd like to see isn't the movie they want to make. That's not to say that I went in with expectations and resent the movie for not conforming to them, though. But yeah, that's probably my central complaint.

In case it's not clear, I really love the concept of the X-Men in a broad sense. I love the series' superhero premise, and I love the basic mythology and all the thematic underpinnings. As characters, Xavier and Magneto's perspectives on the world are really well justified by their life experience, and I love the concept of two great friends driven apart by profound ideological differences*. Unfotunately, I'm never happy with how X-Men stuff is executed.

*Oh, that's another criticism that I think I can air without outraging anybody. The "friendship" between Xavier and Magneto wasn't very convincing. I mean, it takes place over about a half hour of movie time, in which plenty of other stuff is happening. There are only a few intimate scenes between the two, and in only one or two of them is it really clear that the two even care about each other. If I based my take on their relationship on this movie, I wouldn't describe them as "great friends torn asunder by intellectual differences"; I'd say they were some guys that used to work together.
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

Huh. I never viewed it as a one-to-one metaphor for Civil Rights. But then I'm not really that familiar with the execution of the concepts. My only real exposure to the X-Men series is the 90's kids TV show (which I don't remember with much detail) and the movie series. I've never read a single X-Men comic book.

So in my mind, it could be a much broader exploration of human nature. I think Lee correctly guessed the human race's reaction to the idea of mutants. There probably would be a lot of hate, fear, prejudice, and an attempt to somehow reign in and regulate and/or catalog mutants. I think that Xavier and Magneto's opposing viewpoints aren't that much more profound than optimism vs. pessimism w/r/t the human race. Xavier sees potential for good in humans; Magneto sees only the potential for violence. This isn't really mindblowing philosophical territory, but I like that their positions are equally valid and justifiably reinforced by their life experiences. To me, this is the groundwork for a really interesting sort of mutually idealistic warfare, in which neither side is necessarily acting illogically or rashly.

Basically I guess what I'm saying is that the groundwork of X-Men is believable. Like a good sci-fi plot, X-Men introduces a fantastical element into the real world with the explanation of "Science Did It," but represents the results of that impossible premise as they might actually happen. And so my reaction is, "Cool! Let's see how this plays out." But nothing I've seen in the X-Men franchise treats Magneto and Xavier as intellectual equals or tries to explore what might happen if these two factions really did clash (both physically and politically). It always ends up Xavier=Good, Magneto=Bad, Good Wins. But of course, evil doesn't exist, and the moment you let evil exist in a narrative you've handicapped your ability to tell a convincing, interesting story (notable success stories: Star Wars, a lot of Shakespeare).

I guess in my ideal X-Men series, the Xavier vs. Magneto conflict would be treated as a dialectic. The series would use mutant powers as a catalyst to explore whether the loftier side of human nature can surmount evolutionarily determined survival instincts--if human beings, organized into a society, are capable of setting aside their biological fear of the unknown to figure out a way to coexist with mutants. If it's a true dialectic, I guess the answer would be a compromise between the two, which--y'know--might also be a satisfying/surprising ending. But--y'know--X-Men isn't really about all that, as far as I've seen. Apparently X-Men is all about continuity bullshit and explosions.



Anyway, I'm not saying you're wrong about the franchise being handled as a Civil Rights metaphor. I wouldn't be surprised if the comic and TV incarnations of the franchise took it in that direction. I personally didn't notice a lot of that in the movies, but I've only seen each one once when they first came out (with maybe some snippets on TV).

I remember that one of the X-Men movies (the second or the third I think?) had a scene in which the mother of (I think it was) Iceman says, "Have you ever tried not being a mutant?" It's an obvious one-to-one metaphor between being a mutant and being gay, and I think it was mostly thrown in their for laughs. But my point is that the fundamental concept of people being somehow profoundly different and discriminated against for that reason probably is spun off into identity politics metaphors from time to time.

But one of the neat things about X-Men is that there's a lot of intertexuality going on. Afterall, mutant powers only manifest during adolescence, so there's that great mirroring of the adolescent experience (feeling weird, awkward, out of control, simultaneously powerful and weak, hiding your true self, etc.) in the mutant premise. Then there's also the sort of political intertextuality that you're talking about. I think you're right in saying that Xavier/Magneto mimics MLK/X, but mutants themselves can stand in for any "minority" that is discriminated against. I also like how the source for all the symptomatic conflicts of the series, the central event that puts so many of the character's in motion, is the Holocaust. Obviously, as a culture, we're obsessed with the Holocaust (for good and bad reasons), so it's not really so unusual that X-Men uses it as a plot device. But I'm interested in the way that so many character bios (Magneto, Wolverine, every character associated with Wolverine's backstory) involve the trauma of the Holocaust. I mean, X-Men is essentially trying to respond to questions asked by the Holocaust, the central one being, "Do humans deserve to exist if they are capable of something like this?" Like I said, I'd love to see a well-executed, sincere attempt to answer that question, rather than several scenes involving women stripping to their underwear for some reason.

So basically, I see a lot of potential in the groundwork of X-Men, and I think that a direct metaphor to the Civil Rights movement is another matter of poor execution, rather than an inherent aspect of the premise. Honestly, I don't even care if Stan Lee originally intended X-Men to be a Civil Rights metaphor. The series is beyond him now. And even the Civil Rights Movement was synechdocic of some more fundamental conflicts within human nature.

Edit: Talking of favorite scenes, coincidentally, the only scene I liked was sort of the opposite of yours! It was the one from the first X-Men movie--the one where Magneto's being pulled from his mother and his powers first manifest. It was one of the few times where I, as a viewer, really wanted the protagonist to be empowered. Lil Magneto was so helpless in the face of something so obviously evil; I actually really did want him to have that power. It may be the only time that mutant powers have ever really meant anything on screen. I honestly consider it to be a beautiful scene (even if it's not particularly well shot, etc. etc. excuses excuses).
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

Oh, I was too. I assumed they just reused the scene exactly.

Yeah, I've kinda purposely avoided rewatching the first two, because I have vaguely fond memories of them. Although I was telling Tulpa's Girlfriend the other night that the lameness of Rogue (and pretty much every other teenager in the series) kind of ruined the series for me as a whole. I thought Wolverine was pretty well handled, though.

I didn't realize how bad 3 was until I caught the end of it on FX one day. Holy shit.
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

Man, such a great intro to a movie with some great casting! Goddamn, I just wish the series had all come together better.
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

I haven't seen any of the Lord of the Rings movies since I saw the first one during its original theatrical run. Any specifics about what makes it so "childish" or "cartoony"? I mean, is there just a total lack of composition, or something? I saw a few scenes on HBO from one of those movies, like, five years ago. I remember it looking pretty shitty, but it was the pan and scan cut.
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

Oh, wait, something I wanted to mention about Super 8:

For the most part, I thought the direction/cinematography was pretty transparent/unimpressive. There was an overly deliberate attempt to have characters talk over each other and allow action to take place out of frame, which I saw as a Abrams deliberately cribbing from early Spielberg who was cribbing from Altman who was probably cribbing from a French New Waver or something.

But among the handful of scenes that worked like this, there were two or three instances in which the camera (which had probably been panning in a Fellini-ish way), suddenly wheeled around as the fat amateur film-maker character leaped into frame in an extreme close up and shouted something, his eyes looking just off frame. These moments were definitely visually compelling, though I don't think they contributed to a larger theme or anything. Mostly I'm just wondering where Abrams got the idea--if it was another Spielberg homage that I don't recognize, or if maybe it's cribbed from some other director I should know. Or maybe he came up with it himself. Anyway, it's sort of like an arbitrary moment of real direction in a movie that mostly seems to be on auto-pilot.
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

[This Machine Kills Fascis]

Yeah, I wanted Super 8 to be a fun kid's movie (I think everyone did, including the people who made and marketed it), but--I mean--the great family movies of our chidhoods (Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Back to the Future, Gremlins, and--probably to a lesser extent--the Goonies) captured our imaginations because they actually had surprising and original elements. Yeah, the plots were all really conventionally structured and predictable, but in that crucial first act they managed to show us something that we would have never thought of ourselves. And in the remaining acts they added enough thrilling elements to mask the predictability of it all.

Super 8 didn't do that. Heck, a lot of movies don't do that. But--y'know--it's a hard thing to do! That's why there are only a handful of "classic" blockbusters.

It doesn't help that every movie is sprinkled with CGI dust these days. With the technology we have now, I don't think it's possible to create a really terrifying or lovable creature--the likes of which carried movies like Star Wars, Gremlins, and Alien. Seriously, imagine if all the practical effects in those movies were replaced by B-level CGI. It would literally ruin the movies. But I guess now I'm just rambling.

I started to respond to your thing on reading Hollywood movies in a Brechtian light, but I felt like I was starting to sound way too pretentious and pedantic :/
_________________
"Godzilla could be anyone."