Topic: Movies in the Theater (Read 106649 times)

Büge · « **Reply #940 on:** February 24, 2012, 06:30:04 AM »

Quote from: Mongrel on February 23, 2012, 09:53:44 PM

Ultra-minimalist movie posters

404'd!

François · « **Reply #941 on:** February 24, 2012, 06:38:06 AM »

Eh, you can replicate the experience at home. Just open up Paint, get a blank poster-proportion canvas, and flood fill with a random color.

Mongrel · « **Reply #942 on:** February 24, 2012, 07:46:09 AM »

Man, that's so weird. I clicked the link in Buge's quote and I get the 404.

But when I went back to the original source it worked fine.

Then I posted it here again and it worked fine.

Then I clicked on the link in Buge's quote again and of course it worked.

Then I looked and saw both URLs were identical, so I just deleted the re-post and replaced it with this post about how confused I am.

(I guess their site's going up and down or something?)

Lottel · « **Reply #943 on:** March 11, 2012, 08:18:17 PM »

The movie parts of the Lorax were decent. Pretty good at parts even. But as soon as you start really enjoying the movie they hit you with a song. And the songs take something from you deep inside, something you didn't know you had but is now lost forever.
I see a lot of kids' movies. I am used to songs they throw in just to have songs. I am used to bad songs. I was still not prepared for these particular songs.

Friday · « **Reply #944 on:** March 12, 2012, 10:31:25 PM »

GHOST RIDER 2 IS A HELL OF A RIDE

GET IT

OK BUT SERIOUSLY THERE IS A PART WHERE NICOLAS CAGE PISSES LIKE A FLAMETHROWER

warning: movie not good

Thad · « **Reply #945 on:** March 29, 2012, 10:26:10 AM »

Arietty: pretty great! Gorgeously-animated, of course; worth catching in theaters.

On the American casting: Dad is a man of few words, so Will Arnett's voice is never overwhelmingly "HEY THAT'S WILL ARNETT!" There are places where Poehler's histrionics remind you that yes that is Leslie Knope, but she's an over-the-top character and the shrieking fits the animation. At any rate, it's hard to call it stunt-casting; yes, they cast a real husband and wife who are on TV, but they're not exactly A-list.

Hunger Games: quite solid as well! Very well-cast, and a pretty straight-up adaptation of the books. io9 has a list of what was cut; I'd say the biggest loss is the reveal about the Muttations at the end. Other than that -- well, the love story feels odd and it's never really spelled out for you that Katniss is just playing along, but for my money that's the right decision; the movie follows the show-don't-tell rule pretty ruthlessly, with a minimum of flashbacks and announcer-delivered exposition replacing the book's narration.

All in all, a pretty great adaptation, I thought, and it's nice seeing the thing make money, because god damn, teenage girls need a role model who is not Bella fucking Swan.

Niku · « **Reply #946 on:** March 29, 2012, 11:10:16 AM »

The fact that the word "Muttations" was never once uttered automatically catapults the movie heads and shoulders above the source material.

Thad · « **Reply #947 on:** March 29, 2012, 11:27:49 AM »

Aw, c'mon. "Muttation" sounds like something straight out of New Gods.

Niku · « **Reply #948 on:** March 29, 2012, 11:33:04 AM »

Muttations works okay for giant mutts and all, but using it as a catch all term for every genetically engineered creature in the series was a pretty bad call.

Thad · « **Reply #949 on:** March 29, 2012, 11:48:15 AM »

Well, I haven't read past book 1 (and don't intend to on everybody's general advice), but keep in mind that "mutt" has become a general term for anything that gets its genetic material from a bunch of different and random sources.

Bongo Bill · « **Reply #950 on:** April 07, 2012, 09:29:03 PM »

I was dragged out to see The Hunger Games. I had heard that this was the actually-good young adult book series, but figured that it wasn't really for me, so I never looked into it until now. Coming into it with no expectations, I was quite pleased. It could've used a lighter touch on some parts, because the things it did imply subtly made the things it implied blatantly stand out even more.

I'm certain nothing I'm about to say will be new discussion to anyone who's read the books, but I'm gonna say it anyway.

[spoiler]The bit with the producer's forced suicide got me thinking about the setting. The whole dystopia they had established worked on the principle of creating so much spectacle that nobody realizes that the system is unnecessary. When that turns tragic, people start to think about what caused the tragedy, and they run the risk of seeing through the lights and glamor to the cause of their own oppression (viz. their oppressors). Katniss and Peeta killing themselves would have caused unrest that dwarfed the riots in District 11, and the producer knew that. He changed the rules at the end because his job was to keep the masses pacified. However, he made the wrong decision - if the rules of the Games can change in response to the players, it means the players are the ones with the real power; if the rules of society can change in response to the people, it means the people are the ones with the real power. Tyranny depends on keeping that secret. And the producer let the cat out of the bag. (I speculate that he didn't quite realize that he was in the tyranny and oppression business.)[/spoiler]

That's not the deepest or most philosophical of messages, but it's a powerful and important one, applicable to the whole human condition. To have delivered it without shining a gaudy spotlight on it, in a story that entertains very well on other levels, is quite impressive.

Thad · « **Reply #951 on:** April 07, 2012, 11:00:25 PM »

Weeeeell, the people out in the districts -- at least, the ones on the fringes, like 11 and 12, not the ones raising Careers -- certainly don't see this as fun and games. They know what it is: it's a message. It's "We own you. We can make your children fight each other to the death for our amusement and there's nothing you can do about it."

That scene at the end you're talking about isn't in the first book (and neither is the [spoiler]riot[/spoiler]) -- I assume it's lifted from one of the later ones, though I've only read the first. But yeah, what IS clear in the book is the power of stories. Katniss manages to subvert the message, to tell a story that disrupts and undermines the story that the Capitol's been telling.

And what the movie establishes but the book REALLY hammers home is just how slow Katniss is at understanding precisely what she's doing. Haymitch and Cinna get it, but they spend most of the story trying to hammer it into her head. (I don't think Peeta is really setting out to make the audience fall for them, either; I think he's just being earnest. But he DOES seem pretty savvy at the whole manipulation thing once they enter the Arena, so maybe he's doing both.)

And in the end, she even manages to pull off plausible deniability -- [spoiler]she could have looked President Snow in the eye and said "Fuck you," and she'd have been publicly executed and the people would have been cowed. But she kept up the act that she's a lovesick girl who didn't even realize she'd found a way to beat the system, and so they had to let her live.[/spoiler]

It's not clear in the book just how much of the decision to play Peeta and Katniss up as starcrossed lovers is Crane's decision, but yeah he's clearly the one calling the shots in the movie. And [spoiler]he bites off more than he can chew -- in his pursuit of a good story to captivate the audience, he opens the door for a better one. Yes, his "rule change" is what sets up Katniss's ultimate act of rebellion, but it's not even completely necessary -- she could have pulled the same stunt even without it.[/spoiler]

Bongo Bill · « **Reply #952 on:** April 07, 2012, 11:26:13 PM »

There's still [spoiler]the huge audiences who seemed to be getting really into it in the Capital, who could be seen as victims as well despite their higher standard of living. However, the psychographics of the setting[/spoiler] is one thing the movie doesn't really dwell on, which is ultimately to its credit. Considering the books are a whole entire series, I imagine they provide more evidence either in support of or opposition to that interpretation.

Thad · « **Reply #953 on:** April 09, 2012, 08:58:19 AM »

Quote from: Bongo Bill on April 07, 2012, 11:26:13 PM

There's still [spoiler]the huge audiences who seemed to be getting really into it in the Capital, who could be seen as victims as well despite their higher standard of living.[/spoiler]

While I'm sure there are people in the Capitol who object to the Games, they don't have a personal stake in them. The Capitol doesn't give any tributes of its own (indeed it would rather undermine the message of the entire thing, which is to remind the Districts that the Capitol is in charge).

One of the most unfortunate omissions in the movie was Katniss's meeting with [spoiler]a servant girl who'd had her tongue cut out as punishment for fleeing the Capitol. Improbably, Katniss had seen her on the outskirts of District 12 and done nothing to save her from her pursuers.[/spoiler] So there's certainly rot and oppression in the Capitol too.

Niku · « **Reply #954 on:** April 13, 2012, 10:58:11 AM »

Do you like horror movies?

Go see Cabin in the Woods.

NO. STOP. Do not go to youtube and look at a trailer. Do not ask around as to what it is about. Just go and see it if you consider yourself a horror fan.

If you absolutely must have a first five minutes styled spoiler synopsis: [spoiler]Some teenagers go to a cabin in the woods. Bad things try to kill them. The bad things come from a behind-the-scenes organization controlling the cabin in the woods.[/spoiler]

I don't think I've had a smile on my face this big during a movie since The Muppets.

I have definitely not had a smile on my face this big during a horror movie since Drag Me To Hell.

Beat Bandit · « **Reply #955 on:** April 13, 2012, 11:18:18 AM »

I'm assuming the same rule applies to "Drag Me To Hell" if we haven't seen it.

Shinra · « **Reply #956 on:** April 13, 2012, 11:28:18 AM »

The hungry games is a mockumentary about two obese families competing on a supermarket-sweep style game show set in a buffet line. The winner is the family which can assemble the greatest variety of calorically dense food before the buzzer.

Smiler · « **Reply #957 on:** April 13, 2012, 11:45:36 AM »

Quote from: Niku on April 13, 2012, 10:58:11 AM

I don't think I've had a smile on my face this big during a movie since The Muppets.

I have definitely not had a smile on my face this big during a horror movie since Drag Me To Hell.

So is this actually funny, or were you also jerking off the whole time?

Niku · « **Reply #958 on:** April 13, 2012, 11:55:32 AM »

Quote from: Beat Bandit on April 13, 2012, 11:18:18 AM

I'm assuming the same rule applies to "Drag Me To Hell" if we haven't seen it.

actually yes. Drag Me to Hell was basically the perfect tonal successor to the Evil Dead movies, which is why I still love Sam Raimi.

Quote from: Smiler on April 13, 2012, 11:45:36 AM

So is this actually funny, or were you also jerking off the whole time?

IT CAN BE BOTH

Lottel · « **Reply #959 on:** May 27, 2012, 08:48:29 PM »

Just got out of MIB3. It was a lot better than I expected. Best part of the movie? It didn't break the canon set in the cartoon about young K.

One thing that got me though [spoiler]the heavy foreshadowing that someone important would die felt really heavy handed. I assumed it was J and when it turned out not to be, I was actually disappointed. I mean, that'd've been some note to end a trilogy on and would've been a great story. Still was pretty good, though.[/spoiler]

News:

Author Topic: Movies in the Theater (Read 106649 times)