Schoolio's Movie Corner

[unit300021]

Finally saw flight. I'm sure Daniel Day Lewis is going to get the best actor for Lincoln, but Denzel really needs to get some votes for it. The movie as a whole was good but I thought Denzel was great in it. And the Goodman character reminded me so much of Walter.

[JorgeC]

Saw Django Unchained and i really liked it. I agree that the violence was over the top, but i think most Tarantino movies are like that. The talked about scenes were very brutal, but the gun fights and violence are pretty on par with his other films. Biggest issue with the movie: Why didn't Django save his friend!! He just stood there while the one guy left a gun was turned around...what a dick

[schoolofruckus]

Yeah, I caught Django Unchained yesterday at the New Beverly (its only 35mm engagement that I've been able to find so far) and fucking loved it. The length didn't bother me at all; I mean, it would be very easy to identify several chunks of the film that could be lifted in the name of cutting it down to a more plot-favoring 90 minutes. But as I've said many times in one form or another, Tarantino's films work best as a hang experience where we're invited to spend a generous amount of time with some of the most colorful, profanely eloquent characters in modern cinema - and on that count, Django Unchained is ecstasy. It's easy to liken Django to Inglourious Basterds, being an obvious cousin in Quentin's ongoing historical revisionist phase, but I think it has more in common with Kill Bill, in that the "vengeance" is motivated as much by the pursuit of a loved one as it is the desire to slaughter an enemy - a crucial different that helps assuage my own aversion to violence as entertainment. Also, the narrative is strengthened by the primary target of said vengeance and the antagonist being the same person (as opposed to the previous film's splitting these functions between Hitler and Landa), and also by that person being played by DiCaprio in one of the finest performances in a career full of great ones.

Every other actor is equally tremendous, including Jamie Foxx (who I like in some things but was easily the biggest wild card going into this - an uncertainty that seems impossible in light of just how perfect he is here) and Samuel L. Jackson (who reminded me, for the first time since maybe Black Snake Moan, how fucking great he can be when he decides to play a real person rather than an Avenger). Definitely my favorite Waltz performance so far also.

I have only seen like 40 movies from last year, so the idea of making a Top 10 list at this point feels silly. But when I ultimately catch up with the myriad new films I've been meaning to see and make such a list, this will almost certainly be on it.

[ods..]

I agree with literally everything you said in that post.

[mountmccabe]

Also, the narrative is strengthened by the primary target of said vengeance and the antagonist being the same person (as opposed to the previous film's splitting these functions between Hitler and Landa), and also by that person being played by DiCaprio in one of the finest performances in a career full of great ones.

In many ways Jackson's Stephen is the villain of the piece and he certainly is for Django. Stephen played a buffoon for the whites but when away from otherwise it was clear he was smart, cold and calculating. He paid the bills, knew how to best punish folks and he knew how to get the whites to think they came up with the idea. Candi even listens to Stephen (as long as there aren't other whites watching).

That being said while watching the film I wasn't quite of that mind, which hurt as once Tarantino gets killed there is no conflict, no tension, just killing. This is an awful ending if Stephen is not the main villain; as it stands it's just a little boring.

[PotVsKtl]

As I understand it there are whole portions of the screenplay excised from the release. Zoe Bell's appearance as an unnamed mute tracker, for instance, makes no sense. Maybe she just couldn't hack it (I've seen Deathproof) but I think we might get a longer cut at some point. Right around the time the Whole Bloody Affair comes out.

[ods..]

Yeah that's the only "icebox" moment I noticed in the film.

But I kinda liked it. Just like Hitchcock's use of the term; it's something that occurs to you when reaching for some cold chicken in the icebox, "Oh yeah, who the fuck was that girl?"

[FEELS]

I saw Harold & Maude for the first time last night. Such a great, hilarious movie that was wayy ahead of it's time.

[schoolofruckus]

You thought the love story destroyed the film's credibility because you didn't accept the film to begin with.

I meant to ask about this a few days ago: what does this mean? Contrary to the zealous manner in which I review movies I don't like, I see very few that I don't expect to love - the exception being films like Silver Linings Playbook, where I at least have a long history with the filmmakers. I went into Looper with optimism. The things I don't like about are what destroyed its credibility.

[schoolofruckus]

In many ways Jackson's Stephen is the villain of the piece and he certainly is for Django. Stephen played a buffoon for the whites but when away from them he showed he was smart, cold and calculating. He paid the bills, knew how to best punish folks and he knew how to get the whites to think they came up with the idea. Candi even listens to Stephen (as long as there aren't other whites watching).

That being said while watching the film I wasn't quite of that mind, which hurt as once Tarantino gets killed there is no conflict, no tension, just killing. This is an awful ending if Stephen is not the main villain; as it stands it's just a little boring.

I concur with everything you say about Stephen - I didn't mean to diminish his importance. If I amend my comment to include he and DiCaprio as a team (which I think is accurate), my sentiment remains the same - it's still more effective than having Django and Schulz pursuing a mostly faceless target.

I didn't mind the level of difficulty in the final sequence.

[mountmccabe]

I meant to ask about this a few days ago: what does this mean? Contrary to the zealous manner in which I review movies I don't like, I see very few that I don't expect to love - the exception being films like Silver Linings Playbook, where I at least have a long history with the filmmakers. I went into Looper with optimism. The things I don't like about are what destroyed its credibility.

I did not mean to imply you went into expecting something bad. I mean you didn't accept what the film was trying to do.

They are both primarily action movies that drastically over-explain their admittedly clever premises, and take the science out of sci-fi by choosing to engage with their ideas exclusively via simplistic genre tropes ([...]the time-travel-as-device-for-mob-vengeance-only here) rather than scenarios that require actual imagination or intellectual complexity.

You've already dismissed Looper for not being a different type of science fiction film. 'I don't like this style of science fiction film, I don't like ____ from a sci-fi flick so forget this.'

Looper actively uses the "love story" to destroy its credibility.

I would disagree completely.

I don't see how it has any credibility (for the film it is trying to be) without that love story. I am not saying it wouldn't be nice if it was a better love story but making it more of a throw-away or taking it out entirely leaves it a very different, rather empty film.


I generally like my sci-fi harder and more full of tech but a good deal of Looper was built entirely upon the science fiction and fantasy elements as presented so I am on board.

I mean, I can see saying sorry, JGL falling for lady and deciding that her son will be better off and a better person with her than without her isn't realistic and thus I don't accept what you're trying to do but it doesn't feel like that's what you're doing. It seems like you're taking this more on a aww, this would be better if they had laser guns or and androids or someshit. And that's surprising.

I was on board, mostly because I was blown away by the Rainmaker reveal and the realization of how they had built to it that I was set up to take whatever. The sentimental (if that's what it was) route was legit and I, personally, was only thrown by the brief lapse of judgement which made me mentally question why he didn't just shoot off his hand but thankfully that passed (because then he'd be in agony and Willis would pick up the gun with his other hand or whatever and finish his mission).


I'd like to see it again.

[mountmccabe]

If I amend my comment to include he and DiCaprio as a team (which I think is accurate), my sentiment remains the same - it's still more effective than having Django and Schulz pursuing a mostly faceless target.

That makes a lot of sense, then.

[ods..]

I rewatched Looper a few days ago with my girlfriend who hadn't seen it. She hated it. I hated it more the second time around; especially the second half. The first half is alright, pretty quick moving. The second half of the movie (when JGL arrives at the farm) nearly bored me to sleep. Sooooooo dragged out. And the love/sex scene felt completely forced and out of place.

[schoolofruckus]

I did not mean to imply you went into expecting something bad. I mean you didn't accept what the film was trying to do.




You've already dismissed Looper for not being a different type of science fiction film. 'I don't like this style of science fiction film, I don't like ____ from a sci-fi flick so forget this.'




I would disagree completely.

I don't see how it has any credibility (for the film it is trying to be) without that love story. I am not saying it wouldn't be nice if it was a better love story but making it more of a throw-away or taking it out entirely leaves it a very different, rather empty film.


I generally like my sci-fi harder and more full of tech but a good deal of Looper was built entirely upon the science fiction and fantasy elements as presented so I am on board.

I mean, I can see saying sorry, JGL falling for lady and deciding that her son will be better off and a better person with her than without her isn't realistic and thus I don't accept what you're trying to do but it doesn't feel like that's what you're doing. It seems like you're taking this more on a aww, this would be better if they had laser guns or and androids or someshit. And that's surprising.

I was on board, mostly because I was blown away by the Rainmaker reveal and the realization of how they had built to it that I was set up to take whatever. The sentimental (if that's what it was) route was legit and I, personally, was only thrown by the brief lapse of judgement which made me mentally question why he didn't just shoot off his hand but thankfully that passed (because then he'd be in agony and Willis would pick up the gun with his other hand or whatever and finish his mission).


I'd like to see it again.

I don't think you understand what I was saying, at all - if anything, I wanted less guns and someshit. I personally felt Looper took an entirely shallow view of its premise and its characters, and chooses to base its character motivations on superficial emotion and action-film plot mechanics rather than exploring the intriguing ethical and scientific dilemmas built into its premise. You already disputed my primary complaint - that Bruce Willis doesn't change his view of Rainmaker and mama even as JGL develops his relationship with both of them - and since I haven't seen it in a few months and do not plan to see it again, I don't know how to support my points further. I generally prefer to evaluate films based on what's there rather than what I want to be there, but in this case I saw a fascinating one coming toward me, and then running in the other direction.

[xuclarockerx]

Watched most of Amreeka the other night. Fascinating with some LOLs on the side.

[wmgaretjax]

I don't think you understand what I was saying, at all - if anything, I wanted less guns and someshit. I personally felt Looper took an entirely shallow view of its premise and its characters, and chooses to base its character motivations on superficial emotion and action-film plot mechanics rather than exploring the intriguing ethical and scientific dilemmas built into its premise. You already disputed my primary complaint - that Bruce Willis doesn't change his view of Rainmaker and mama even as JGL develops his relationship with both of them - and since I haven't seen it in a few months and do not plan to see it again, I don't know how to support my points further. I generally prefer to evaluate films based on what's there rather than what I want to be there, but in this case I saw a fascinating one coming toward me, and then running in the other direction.

SPOILERS

I think this is pretty easily explained... a kind of dull lag was already introduced as the primary symptom of the evolving timelines... this plus the fact that Levitt's newly minted feelings were competing with Willis's (admittedly fading) life long relationship seems a fairly reasonable way of explaining Willis's continued determination.

regardless, it was a fun, well made film for a hollywood sci fi flick...

i enjoyed Django, but thought Fox was mediocre and the pacing/cinematography weak for a Tarrantino film. Still fantastic though.

Zero Dark Thirty was abysmal. Genuinely shocked at the praise this film has gotten. I had nothing good to say about it by the end.

[unit300021]

Zero Dark Thirty was abysmal. Genuinely shocked at the praise this film has gotten. I had nothing good to say about it by the end.

Why I do agree it has been over praised I don't think it was that bad. Just a lot slower then I was expecting it to be and I am curious about how much of it was actually accurate compared to be exaggerated for the sake of the movie. I do think it's a movie that is worth seeing, just worth waiting for it to be on HBO/Netflix. Or just do what I did and stream the DVD leak online.

[ods..]

Watched Seven Psychopaths tonight and thoroughly enjoyed it. Haven't seen Mcdonagh's other film In Bruges but I've been meaning too. I thought this one was pretty funny, held together tightly by great performances from Sam Rockwell and Christopher Walken. Woody Harrelson does a good job as well as the film's "chief villain". The meta-story ala Kaufman's Adaptation wasn't as fluid or deftly done but it's a good-time movie with some dark, violent humor. Tom Waits with a brilliant cameo also.

[schoolofruckus]

SPOILERS

I think this is pretty easily explained... a kind of dull lag was already introduced as the primary symptom of the evolving timelines... this plus the fact that Levitt's newly minted feelings were competing with Willis's (admittedly fading) life long relationship seems a fairly reasonable way of explaining Willis's continued determination.

See, that's not always true. The dull lag you mention isn't present in, say, the moment where JGL learns the identity of the Rainmaker - Willis learns it at that exact moment also. Nor is there much delay in the physical changes made between them (forearm directions, Paul Dano's thing, etc.). The difference with these moments is that they serve Johnson's clever (not smart) plotting; in places that would require him to dig deeper, he ignores his own rules and forges ahead with the chase. I'm not saying that Willis should have a complete reversal of course once JGL develops feelings, but he should have at least had some degree of conflicted feelings (and contrary to what John said, I didn't see a trace of this), which would have been compelling because he wouldn't understand their origin - but again, that wouldn't allow Johnson to stage a brainless, melodramatic finale that most recalls Gran Torino.

Sure, it's better than many other "sci-fi" action movies. But personally, that's a genre I'm becoming increasingly hard on.

[schoolofruckus]

I also want to hear more about why you hated Zero Dark Thirty.

[wmgaretjax]

See, that's not always true. The dull lag you mention isn't present in, say, the moment where JGL learns the identity of the Rainmaker - Willis learns it at that exact moment also. Nor is there much delay in the physical changes made between them (forearm directions, Paul Dano's thing, etc.). The difference with these moments is that they serve Johnson's clever (not smart) plotting; in places that would require him to dig deeper, he ignores his own rules and forges ahead with the chase. I'm not saying that Willis should have a complete reversal of course once JGL develops feelings, but he should have at least had some degree of conflicted feelings (and contrary to what John said, I didn't see a trace of this), which would have been compelling because he wouldn't understand their origin - but again, that wouldn't allow Johnson to stage a brainless, melodramatic finale that most recalls Gran Torino.

Sure, it's better than many other "sci-fi" action movies. But personally, that's a genre I'm becoming increasingly hard on.

i think it is a fair complaint, as it definitely wasn't entirely consistent or thoroughly explained... but not a total film breaker.

i'll write something about zero dark thirty, but I'm still seething and want to give it a few days.

[Tubesock Shakur]

I was okay with Looper as it was a brain dead sci-fi flick. Why not just shoot JGL character and get it over with, why let him hunt his future self? Why hunt any future selfs? Just have another looper shoot your future self. Movie over. Yeah, Looper sucked. Loop right into the goddamn furnace.


The best Sci-fi flick of 2012..... Safety Not Guaranteed.

[guedita]

Safety Not Guaranteed was a GREAT movie.

[Tubesock Shakur]

Safety Not Guaranteed was a GREAT movie.

OMG So we are besties now?

[guedita]

Depends, what year are you in?

[Tubesock Shakur]

Horse.

[rage patton]

Watched Seven Psychopaths tonight and thoroughly enjoyed it. Haven't seen Mcdonagh's other film In Bruges but I've been meaning too. I thought this one was pretty funny, held together tightly by great performances from Sam Rockwell and Christopher Walken. Woody Harrelson does a good job as well as the film's "chief villain". The meta-story ala Kaufman's Adaptation wasn't as fluid or deftly done but it's a good-time movie with some dark, violent humor. Tom Waits with a brilliant cameo also.

You need to see In Bruges. It is absolutely fantastic. One of my favourites films actually. I haven't seen Seven Psychopaths yet, but I plan on it soon.

[amyzzz]

I agree with the last several statements.

[unit300021]

Safety Not Guaranteed was a GREAT movie.

It is, one of the top movies of 2012 for me. I just thought the ending with the "special effects of the time machine leaving so cheesy. I also don't get why they had the scene with the pick up truck in the forest and then did nothing at all with it.

[jgafs]

Tarantino never follows the rules when it comes to directing, he does what he wants, when he wants...I dig and respect that.

I did get thrown by his cameo though...Thought that was a bit ridiculous. Much different from 'The Bonnie Situation', where he actually fit well.


Django for me performance-wise, I though both Sam & Leo killed it.

Sam is great character actor, his facial expressions alone should get a best supporting actor nomination.

Leo was colorful and inviting as the 'villain'.

Foxx was okay, had the confidence and look of a leading man but overall I felt some acting moments were forgettable.

Also, Kerry Washington was ehhhhhh....except for the hot box part of course.