Is he still here? I really wish Dear Leader wasn't so opposed to GIF responses because hot damn does the Bart Simpson "At Least You Tried" cake apply here.
Anyways if y'all like Tig Notaro One Mississippi really is good and it truly is a shame what happened with that show. I don't blame her for bowing out AT ALL, but it is a shame. I do have to give Snyder props for dropping D'Elia when his sex pest tendencies came out and going to the trouble of replacing him. Meanwhile Shane Black went out of his way to put a convicted sex offender in the last Predator film then hid behind his cast to answer for it. Pretty much washed my hands of him with that stunt and I say that as a huge Kiss Kiss Bang Bang fan. And don't get me started on the Spacey/Redgrave/Nero news.
Anyways, what do we think the next Re:View will be? Personally I'd love to hear Jay and Josh dissect Shadow of the Vampire or The Devils. I know Josh isn't popular around here but I generally like him on Re:View way more than I do on BOTW.
The only thing I know about One Mississippi is that Louis CK gave Tig the show and when the false accusations started leaking about Louis she immediately stabbed him in the back like the bitter, ungrateful cunt she is.
Anyways, what do we think the next Re:View will be? Personally I'd love to hear Jay and Josh dissect Shadow of the Vampire or The Devils. I know Josh isn't popular around here but I generally like him on Re:View way more than I do on BOTW.
The only thing I know about One Mississippi is that Louis CK gave Tig the show and when the false accusations started leaking about Louis she immediately stabbed him in the back like the bitter, ungrateful cunt she is.
He did. He's admitted to it multiple times. And even if the accusations were false, saying what happened to the show is a shame still applies. Not sure where this rage is coming from.
The Haunting of Julia is great. Have they ever talked about Don't Look Now?
You can't discern a single actual point i'm making but still keep trying to get my attention. This is real subhumanity. You don't know what I'm saying but you know you don't like it.
1) your smug condescension is immediately off-putting, which leads one to assume
2) you're an obscenely verbose troll with some odd fixations, or
3) you are crazier than a shithouse rat.
But do go on in the mode of a coprophile mocking his lessers because they're simply too unrefined to appreciate the subtle pleasures of smearing shit on oneself.
1) your smug condescension is immediately off-putting, which leads one to assume
2) you're an obscenely verbose troll with some odd fixations, or
3) you are crazier than a shithouse rat.
But do go on in the mode of a coprophile mocking his lessers because they're simply too unrefined to appreciate the subtle pleasures of smearing shit on oneself.
That's sort of where I'm at with Army of the Dead.
It's not a good movie. It's shallow and vapid, it rips off a ton of shit left and right, the characters are absolutely retarded, the "jokes" go on too long and just get annoying while the action is usually a confused mess of stupid, when it's not insulting. Plot holes and magic plot events happen way too often. Basically, it's incompetently made.
I still managed to have fun with it, mostly, until about the last five minutes. Like a lot of zombie movies, it fumbles the ending. Not because...
Everyone dies and the plague continues
...but because it's all so incompetently handled. Some of it you could chalk up to having to green-screen in Tig at the last minute, but only a little of it.
But again, still had fun with it. I enjoyed watching it, once, I wouldn't add it to my collection or anything, no desire to watch it again, but once was... a modestly fun way to spend an afternoon. And there were a couple of bits that I actually enjoyed.
That's sort of where I'm at with Army of the Dead.
It's not a good movie. It's shallow and vapid, it rips off a ton of shit left and right, the characters are absolutely retarded, the "jokes" go on too long and just get annoying while the action is usually a confused mess of stupid, when it's not insulting. Plot holes and magic plot events happen way too often. Basically, it's incompetently made.
I still managed to have fun with it, mostly, until about the last five minutes. Like a lot of zombie movies, it fumbles the ending. Not because...
Everyone dies and the plague continues
...but because it's all so incompetently handled. Some of it you could chalk up to having to green-screen in Tig at the last minute, but only a little of it.
But again, still had fun with it. I enjoyed watching it, once, I wouldn't add it to my collection or anything, no desire to watch it again, but once was... a modestly fun way to spend an afternoon. And there were a couple of bits that I actually enjoyed.
The issue is I don't want to get Netflix, nor do I want to buy a physical copy of it nor do I care enough to try to find a torrent, if there was an easier way to watch it, I would, like if it was on another streaming service I do use.
Gave it some time for the intelligent replies to arrive. Starting to look like they're not coming so let's just make do with what we have. This thread can at least host half of an interesting discussion for a while longer.
Like you can tell the difference. What is the difference between an immense film and a monumental one? Is Michael Bay's Transformers a monumental work? Can you explain why it is or isn't without resorting to a sputtering appeal to the self-evidence of your pea-brained knee-jerk reaction?
That's craft work. Archivist work. Not great work. Jackson hitching himself up behind someone else's vision to see the job done. You can say it's good work, but not great by any standard by which the word means anything. Snyder has demonstrated his greatness on multiple occasions. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
Greater than you? No question. What have you got over them other than appeals to your personal brand of pea-brained slave morality that doesn't hold 2 seconds under the 'fat girl cope' test? Are you also a better man than Neil Armstrong because you don't litter on the moon? Better than Julius Caesar because you understand violence and conquest are bad? I look forward to more hare-brained appeals to the self-evidence of your righteousness on this point, followed by your fellow weak art and greatness hating retards pinning upvotes on your chest.
Gotterdammerung means so much more than a deliberately obtuse way of saying hey did you notice this film is about really bad stuff happening? It's actually his way of suggesting the opposite, that what's happening in the film is natural and cyclical, and that what we're witnessing is a catastrophic destruction, but also the necessary prelude to a more vital rejuvenation of the world. It's not just a wink. I know that's all your pea-brain can process and you've never challenged yourself with reading more into art than superficial stimulation and maybe some stupid little winks. That's all you can imagine of subtext, winks. Jokes. Memes. Things which don't matter beyond scoring a bullet point on the imdb trivia page. But in this case these things do matter. They matter because Snyder cared enough to do them. They matter because I and other perceptive viewers enjoyed the film more for their presence, we got significantly more out of the viewing experience because they were there. If this doesn't matter why does anything matter in art? Why don't we all just watch 15 second videos of people falling down on youtube in our spare time? Is this the least masturbatory way to enjoy ourselves?
You clearly don't give a shit about film, but you care about RLM. Why is that? Because RLM isn't about film. RLM isn't a film program. It's a guerilla war against high culture and human excellence. Even when they're being positive, even positive towards "auteurs", maybe they'll occasionally talk about David Lynch or Craig Zahler's least superficially challenging work, they're still waging their war. They shoot the shit over superficial bullshit and call it thought. They're unchallenging. Deliberately so. They aim to pass time, like short videos of dogs or people falling down, but also they aim to pose as teachers. They give you nothing and tell you this is all that there is. That's the appeal of RLM. Comfort, no challenge, and the security of fellow retards telling you everyone who seeks more than this is some kind of retarded failure. The same rush you get from fellow idiots here pinning medals on your inane posts.
"300 is Dreck" says Kiwifarms poster Sped Xing. Why is this film bad? Well Snyder is retarded, but also the comic book is shit, so it's not really his fault. This begs the questions, why is the comic shit? And by extension the film of the same name which apparently Snyder was powerless to affect the substance of. I figure the answer is almost certainly some faggot-brained art-hating offal along the lines of "doesn't align with and validate my boring as shit dry, moralising and factual knowledge of the events which inspired the work. Every movie should be a photographed wikipedia page."
You say a civilisation's value in its ability to be 'self-critical'. That the Greeks were 'self-critical' and thus better than the Persians, or at least worthy of preservation. By what standard can we measure this 'self-critical' edge? How else but by their great works produced by their great men? What good is self-criticism if not using it to direct ourselves towards more full self expression and fulfillment. What did Athens and Sparta have that Los Angeles doesn't? Sparta was a great work, and Athens provided an environment in which many men could produce their own great works. That's why they're remembered. And their greatness is in the scope and richness of what they were doing. Big visions. More than that, necessarily big visions. Big enough to contain the whole breadth of imagination and power of their creators.
You can't simultaneously hate the great-man vision of art and civilisation and lionise the greeks. They lived and breathed this philosophy you're trying to tear down in this thread. Why do you think they thought slavery was okay? It's because they understood that retards like you and the rest of dead-inside normalfaggotdom can't appreciate anything beyond the base so the best and most proper use of your lives is shackling you to the wills of greater and more sensitive men. In better times people like you would literally wear shackles so that your betters could better do what they wanted. Denying you and your kind freedom costs the human race nothing, and for it men with potential were able to flourish to heights still impressive to this day.
Do you think the average slave could understand Parmenides? If he didn't have it drilled into his head by force that two-legged cattle could never have anything worthwhile to say about their betters he might express opinions on Parmenides despite the lack of understanding. What do you think those opinions might sound like? Think about that. And then think about the content of this thread. And then think about why i might feel so strongly on this issue.
Now onto film art. If you weren't a completely degenerated soul only fit for slavery by this point in your life you'd have recognised 300 as a film all about these questions of power and domination. This is how the Greeks would have seen Thermopylae eventually. Not in the literal sense that they're children who imagine everything as superhumans fighting ogres, but almost in the same sense yes. The deep and sensitive minds of Greek high culture see beyond the surface facts of a thing and see the underlying truth. The point of art is not to give an accurate and factual recreation/depiction of the past, as if that's even possible. The point is to blow life up bigger, so that we can better explore the universal truths that underlie individual experience. Caring about the truth of Thermopylae is fucking gay. There aren't just as many truths of Thermopylae as there were people there. There are as many as there are people who have heard of it.
Zack Snyder's truth of Thermopylae might not align perfectly with all of your favourite factual tidbits you picked up from r/askhistorians, but it aligns beautifully with the fundamental and universal truths of power and history. And being not just an artist but a film artist, these truths are mostly coded in the language of film. His characters don't simply say what Snyder thinks, his characters and there actions are the truth of Snyder's vision brought to life through sequenced moving images. It's a truth of physicality, masses of bodies, kinetic motion, symbolic gestures. An attempt at making full use of the new language of expression that the creation of the cinema gave to our artists. A language most are unfortunately nearly deaf to by adulthood, the spiteful pecking of the world having clipped most souls of their finer material and sensitivity that makes one receptive to such imaginative expressions of humanity. This state of affairs is what has left us with the dreary anti-spectacle of the writer's cinema. Public celebration of anti-art vomit such as Tom McCarthy's Spotlight. That's what happens when facts and normalfag moral visions are allowed to direct the course of expression. It's worse than ugly. It's boring.
Like you. You are worse than ugly or stupid, you are boring. The reason I have to write so much about art in general and the greeks and so little about 300 is because you have so little to say, and even what you do say is so devoid of substance that i have to make that the subject of my response, your attitude rather than your thoughts. This is because you have none.
Next I could quote a lot of your shorter posts which all amount to "wow look how obviously dumb this post was give me thumbs and medals" but they're so devoid of substance this isn't worth making the post longer over. I'll address all of the shorter responses with this. If I'm so obviously wrong in the substance of my thought why doesn't even one of you answer me in substance? It ties into your thoughts on art, as art criticism really is an art of its own. It's one thing to have the general idea, another entirely to make it happen. This is why Zack Snyder is known all over the world and given piles of money bigger than your homes to do as he pleases with, while the "ideas guy" is a widely mocked stereotype. If you totally could tear me apart, if you have the beautiful shining ideas in your head, why don't you prove it? Are you afraid that this inner golden brilliance might appear to only be copper if we all look at it under the light of day?
This is why I'm on this site. I don't intend to stay, but for a while I wanted a fresh set of eyes to challenge some of my biggest and dearest ideas. They've sat in my head getting bigger and shinier in my own perception for a long time, and I've aired them in the presence of my preferred company to good reception, but I had to be sure. That means first testing my will by putting in the effort to transform these ideas from fun clouds in my head to tangible paragraphs of text, and then the test of exposure to a non-friendly audience inclined to criticism and hostility.
I did this because I care about the subject of my writings and my own ability to think. I believe that my ideas need to be proven in a trial by fire, and I believe that my conviction needs to be tested by a demand of some effort. I can freely spin these ideas out line by line among friendly company, But among a new and unconvinced audience I need something that can stand from scratch. I need complete ideas. I need to give my thoughts legs.
I'm doing this. Why aren't you? You have keyboards. You have time. You're implicitly at least superficially interested in the subject matter. Why not answer me in kind? Do you not consider me worth the trouble? Don't make me laugh. I came into this thread certain that I'm a superior thinker to everyone else present combined but type my paragraphs upon paragraphs anyway. Why do you think that is? It's because the challenge and development of your own thoughts is worth doing for its own sake. I believe this, but I get the impression I'm quite alone in this here.
Never read Rand but I admire her just based on the calibre of person she visibly upsets. She's clearly onto something, but i don't care to find out what because her books all appear to be the size of cinderblocks.
No you don't.
Why is Snyder not like Tarkovsky? You seem quite sure this is a bad thing but I'm not convinced you appreciate any element of this issue beyond sign-value.
Pauline Kael is a hero of our time and you haven't given a good reason for abandoning her. Let alone not leaning even deeper into her style and becoming more Kaelian than Kael herself.
You all suck. You all hate art. You are enemies of civilisation and humanity. Send my reaction score negative with your torrent of hat reacts. The contempt of those less human than oneself is nothing to be ashamed of.
Like you can tell the difference. What is the difference between an immense film and a monumental one? Is Michael Bay's Transformers a monumental work? Can you explain why it is or isn't without resorting to a sputtering appeal to the self-evidence of your pea-brained knee-jerk reaction?
That's craft work. Archivist work. Not great work. Jackson hitching himself up behind someone else's vision to see the job done. You can say it's good work, but not great by any standard by which the word means anything. Snyder has demonstrated his greatness on multiple occasions. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
Greater than you? No question. What have you got over them other than appeals to your personal brand of pea-brained slave morality that doesn't hold 2 seconds under the 'fat girl cope' test? Are you also a better man than Neil Armstrong because you don't litter on the moon? Better than Julius Caesar because you understand violence and conquest are bad? I look forward to more hare-brained appeals to the self-evidence of your righteousness on this point, followed by your fellow weak art and greatness hating retards pinning upvotes on your chest.
1) your smug condescension is immediately off-putting, which leads one to assume
2) you're an obscenely verbose troll with some odd fixations, or
3) you are crazier than a shithouse rat.
But do go on in the mode of a coprophile mocking his lessers because they're simply too unrefined to appreciate the subtle pleasures of smearing shit on oneself.
The tiger scene sucked.
I was waiting for the guy to pull out a knife or do something interesting the whole time but he just gets thrown around some more.
You can't discern a single actual point i'm making but still keep trying to get my attention. This is real subhumanity. You don't know what I'm saying but you know you don't like it.
Judging by the clips they played and how they described the movie, like how much it rips off Aliens, I already know that I wouldn't think it's a great movie.
The cheapness of it is the main thing that bums me out, it looks pretty cheaply made, not as snazzy as Dawn and it's lazy as hell to imitate Aliens' story beats so closely, that's one of the things I like about the 2004 Dawn is it's an entirely different movie than the original, it just uses the same basic premise but tells it's own story.
If you compare it to his movie Sucker Punch (which RLM hated in only the second or third Half in The Bag episode, but I love) the story was pretty weak and literally just an excuse to have hot chicks do cool things, but at least it was a pretty unique story and not just totally ripping some other movie off.
That RLM review of Sucker Punch was terrible though and almost made me ditch RLM, I just never understood why they reacted quite so negatively, these guys absolutely are way more cynical that I am with my tastes, but I watch them because they manage to make entertaining videos on their own, I don't watch them solely to get their opinions on movies lol.
So I don't think I'd hate the movie either, I still plan on watching it, I've always taken their opinions with a grain of salt.
You like Sucker Punch? There might be hope for you yet. Your actual comments on the film bear the taint of bug-think, but the baseline of enjoyment is something. Your soul has a pulse! The film's "story" if you want to call the surface narrative that, the part we get in the wikipedia synopsis, is not weak. It's light. It's light because this is a piece of film art, when we have the power to control the flow of sound, picture, time and motion we can do things that are so much more interesting than blunt portrayals of a series of things happening to some people. Sucker Punch really goes out of its way to tell you that it's a work in which struggles are shown in varying scales and that what you see stands for more than what's right in front of you. What do you think was the point of the dance numbers fading into phantasy? It was Snyder's deliberate attempt at shaking you out of this unperceptive stupor. Give you the opportunity to realise for yourself "oh hey the events on screen aren't literally what's happening but if i look close and think i can see the more grounded and sensible struggle being represented within this greater one." That's what the entire film is about. That's what Snyder's entire filmography is about. That's what myths and epics are about.
The lady-doctor attempts to heal her patients through performance. Work through your issues performatively. The film is directly telling you that it's the struggle of damaged girls represented through phantasy caricature, perhaps the point is sincere healing, perhaps it's cynically exploitative, perhaps it's both. You're free to decide about the intentions of both the character and Snyder. Who is Snyder in this film? The sympathetic doctor out to survive, the controlling master out to dominate? Maybe he's self-awarely suggesting to you that he could be either. These are the two competing impulses behind putting on the great show. They fight behind the scenes, but we're only supposed to see the finished product. And like the marks who contribute to the liberation of our heroines most of us are too caught up in the superficial right in front of us elements to see the real substantial action.
The damaged souls of American womandom being worked through snyder's self-aware audiovisual psychoanalytic wringer. That is Sucker Punch. You can think it's deranged, retarded, autistic, whatever, but it is not simple. You only perceived an excuse to have hot chicks do cool things, you're the dance audience. You saw a fraction of the story and felt so content that that's all there was that you wrote this post and shared it with the whole internet. "pretty weak and literally just an excuse to have hot chicks do cool things." That's your reading. But again, it's redeemable. You're at least partially right. The work is pretty unique.
And RLM aren't cynical, they're downright nihilistic. I am cynical. I have hard values, I have been made harsh by experience. I believe that what is good will if not aggressively championed, perish. RLM by contrast want everything good to perish.
That's sort of where I'm at with Army of the Dead.
It's not a good movie. It's shallow and vapid, it rips off a ton of shit left and right, the characters are absolutely retarded, the "jokes" go on too long and just get annoying while the action is usually a confused mess of stupid, when it's not insulting. Plot holes and magic plot events happen way too often. Basically, it's incompetently made.
I still managed to have fun with it, mostly, until about the last five minutes. Like a lot of zombie movies, it fumbles the ending. Not because...
Everyone dies and the plague continues
...but because it's all so incompetently handled. Some of it you could chalk up to having to green-screen in Tig at the last minute, but only a little of it.
But again, still had fun with it. I enjoyed watching it, once, I wouldn't add it to my collection or anything, no desire to watch it again, but once was... a modestly fun way to spend an afternoon. And there were a couple of bits that I actually enjoyed.
This invincible ignorance that refuses to entertain the idea that it is ignorance. This spirit of "what i see does not impress me, and what i see is all there is". This is how a spiteful bug thinks about art. You appeal to power rather than aesthetics and hope to put yourself above the artist by creating arbitrary rules and technicalities on which he can be caught out on. Nothing you have written here is more substantial than "too many notes". This is what happens when you make a habit of listening to the babble of fat former wedding photographers for so long that you convince yourself this is all there is to appreciating art. Did you actually think this was anything but pure babble when you were writing it? Did you look it over before posting? Let's try to discern your main points against the film.
- it's not a good movie.
- shallow and vapid
- rips off a ton of shit left and right (ripping off is not and never has been a real problem or criticism. It's something retards say to strike out when they have nothing solid. It feels solid because it takes the form of a rule, that doesn't give it legitimacy though.)
- characters are retarded (everyone and their actions actions stand for more than what's happening right in front of you. But at the same time i feel like this doesn't matter because the film does a fine job of working as a surface level action narrative. I'm sure nothing makes sense if approached with as big a chip on your shoulder as the one you brought into this movie.)
- jokes go on too long and just get annoying (whatever, i wasn't bothered by the humour. Probably a safe bet that in at least one of these overlong scenes you just missed most of the substance. "Too many notes!")
- the action is usually a confused mess of stupid, when it's not insulting (again, events are more than they appear to be and don't offend those who don't want to be offended. This means nothing.)
- plotholes and magic plot (how did you survive the weight of this mother of all chips on your shoulder for over two hours?)
- Basically, it's incompetently made. ("basically incompetent" declares kiwifarms user 'MembersSchoolPizza'. "modestly fun", but "all so incompetently handled." Better luck next time Mister Snyder, it's clear you've failed as a filmmaker this time.)
I could properly rip into you here but instead i'll just ask you to sincerely consider the possibility that you don't actually enjoy film. Also seriously consider not posting on the subject anymore. Your lack of enthusiasm can be observed rubbing off on others within this thread.
The rest of you are too stupid to bother with. Note that in other threads i'm not like this.
Why is Snyder not like Tarkovsky? You seem quite sure this is a bad thing but I'm not convinced you appreciate any element of this issue beyond sign-value.
Made me lol but I'll let Tarkovsky explain it himself.
"If you want to reach a general audience, you have to make films like Star Wars and Superman which have nothing to do with art. This doesn’t mean I treat the public like idiots, but I certainly don’t take pains to please them."
I'm especially curious to hear their thoughts on Nobody, which I enjoyed far more than I expected to, and Mortal Kombat, just because of how Jay feels about the 90s version.
Kael went to war with a particular nonsensical past formulation of auteur theory which nobody now recalls when they hear the term, because it was completely retarded and Kael rightly pointed out that it was stupid. Old auteur theory suggested a great artist is someone who is able to shine independently of the parts of his vision he doesn't control. While the new popularly understood theory which kael asserts the plain sanity of, is that a great master of expression will achieve unity in his works between intentions and content. There should not be an incongruence between the director's vision and the whole work. This is a sensible position and that's where Kael shined. Being the one brave enough to assert sense in the face of popular nonsense. Here, read it yourself and stand in awe at the retardation Kael cut down for us: https://the.hitchcock.zone/wiki/Film_Quarterly_(1963)_-_Circles_and_Squares
You say you're letting the man 'explain' with his quote, but look closely and you'll find that there's no actual explanation contained within. It's just an off-hand reference to a very general class of american spectacle film as 'not art'. It means nothing. It's a shallow attempt at point-scoring by someone who doesn't actually care about the subject at hand (you, not him). I'm nearly done with this site. If any of you want to get a real hit in you're running out of time.
I'll never understand what it is about Zach Snyder that causes retards like our sperg friend here to froth at the mouth and claim it's all just 3DEEP5YOU PLEBIANS.
I guess a large part of it - at least initially - has to do with the Marvel vs DC capeshit autism (which is basically console warring for movies) and pretending that making a movie dark and edgy makes it better and more mature but the massive cult following he's attracted (though no real fault of his own as far as I can tell) is still bizarre to see.
Snyder is one of those directors that makes movies by coming up with a bunch of scenes he wants to do and then everything else is just filler so it frequently leads to numerous plot holes and scenes that make no sense if you spend more than 2 seconds thinking about them. Man of Steel was filled with them - "Stop invincible son" - as was Snyder League
why did the amazons need that ridiculously stupid setup to contact WW instead of just using a phone? How do you portray them as that adverse to technology but then make it so the only reason she even learned about the bonfire being lit was because she happened to be near a tv? Why was Martian Manhunter cosplaying as Ma Kent? Why did he only show up at the end to warn Batman about the guy he'd already seen through the portal and WW had told him about? Where was he when they lost to Steppenwolf and the Flash had to save them?)
I can see his movies being enjoyable if you just get plastered and wanna watch dumb action scenes but subjecting yourself to them sober just makes your head hurt. It's just really funny seeing fanboys try and claim them as high art rather than middling schlock.
I'm especially curious to hear their thoughts on Nobody, which I enjoyed far more than I expected to, and Mortal Kombat, just because of how Jay feels about the 90s version.
Yeah Nobody was a lot of fun. I'm hoping we'll get to see it on a wrap up episode sometime. Since Jay has watched all the John Wick movies I'd be kinda surprised to not see him bring it up.
Is he still here? I really wish Dear Leader wasn't so opposed to GIF responses because hot damn does the Bart Simpson "At Least You Tried" cake apply here.
