Page 171 of 172 FirstFirst ... 71121161169170171172 LastLast
Results 1,701 to 1,710 of 1717

Thread: I just saw...

  1. #1701
    dormant jigglypuff's Avatar
    Type
    xxxx
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    zone 10a
    Posts
    5,917
    la jetée (1962) - sci-fi, time travel "photo novel" comprised of mostly still images. romantic in a way that fits my personal definition of romantic. somehow this reminded me of eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. i'm kinda surprised i've never seen this before, it fits my interests

    cobra (1925) - my response is in the sexiest women thread

    it (2017) - disappointing

    rebels of the neon god (1992) - another movie about teenagers/early 20-somethings not knowing what the fuck to do with themselves. good style, though.
    Spoiler: x


    stranger by the lake (2013) - netflix recommended this to me and i didn't have any expectations or any idea what this was about, but this was really good.
    Spoiler: x

  2. #1702
    Ozark 9/10
    The Orville 4/10
    The OA 5.5/10

  3. #1703
    Merry Christmas Blorg's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    near a castle
    Posts
    3,509
    Quote Originally Posted by jigglypuff View Post
    it (2017) - disappointing
    I thought so too. The structure just didn't work. It was the same scare strategy over and over again.

    Also, I feel like they broke an unwritten rule of good horror movies that occurred to me after. Good horror movies don't tell you exactly what the monster/threat is made of, but they do communicate that the monster/threat is guided by the presence of consistent codes and laws, kind of like a secret culture - which the protagonists can't see directly, but are keenly aware of. That's one thing that made movies like The Shining and The Babadook successful, to me at least. But in It, there are all of these pointless ambiguities - is the clown real, or just a hallucination, or sometimes one or the other? Is the clown just its favorite thing or something closer to its essence than its other manifestations, or what? There's all of these questions that are raised but completely unanswered, and the ambiguity isn't scary. It just makes the monster seem random and without depth of character or culture.

    Also, I thought it was funny that they were gung-ho about their graphic depiction of a little boy bleeding to death after getting his arm get ripped off by a clown in a sewer, but they thought that implying preteen sex was Just Too Much (I hear that's how the book ends). The story is fundamentally perverse and reprehensible, especially in its leering approach to Beverly, but it's like the filmmakers were immune to certain manifestations of its perversity. it's scary how comparatively normalized it is to show graphic violence and the sexualization of preteen girls. And it seems like the filmmakers weren't so much discussing as reflecting that (for example, the slow pans across Beverly's body were unnecessary). It just ended up feeling hypocritical and creepy in an unintended way.
    "Better not to feel too much until the crisis ends—and if it never ends, at least we’ll have suffered a little less, developed a useful dullness...The constant—and very real—fear of being hurt, the fear of death, of intolerable loss, or even of “mere” humiliation, leads each of us, the citizens and prisoners of the conflict, to dampen our own vitality, our emotional and intellectual range, and to cloak ourselves in more and more protective layers until we suffocate." - Toni Morrison

  4. #1704
    schlemiel Faust's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Dot
    I thought so too. The structure just didn't work. It was the same scare strategy over and over again.
    Strange pacing for that, which wasn't terribly effective at scares. Creepy I guess. It felt like one of those PG-13 horrors in that sense.

    Personally I find the '80s bullying trope more annoying and uncomfortable than anything else in the film, and it took up a lot of time.

    But in It, there are all of these pointless ambiguities - is the clown real, or just a hallucination, or sometimes one or the other?
    Not everything deserves an explanation, least of all in horror, but I think the problem is decidedly the opposite. Or maybe IT is stuck in that swamp-land that requires either more ambiguity or less, but seeing all the tricks repeatedly makes it seem unambiguous to the point that there being no rhyme or reason to what the creature can or can't do is a bit grating - it reveals too much of itself for that to work. Superhero universes have rules that can't be broken in order to suspend disbelief; the advantage horror monsters tend to have is that they can get away with just about any feat in realm of magical realism, until such a point that they are too pointedly defined and amass unnecessary rules for themselves. A restrained creature, a known one, is far less scary. This is somewhat what happens to IT by the end of the film. What probably failed to translate from the book properly.

    (I hear that's how the book ends)
    It has an orgy/train, or something. This day and age I'm just happy novelists can get away with writing whatever the fuck they want. Oddly enough the biggest pushback to this idea lately is about writing characters an author purportedly ought not represent or identify with; other genders, cultures and races.
    "All my heroes are dead" - John Zorn

    "It's not selfish if you hate yourself"

  5. #1705
    Merry Christmas Blorg's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    near a castle
    Posts
    3,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Faust View Post
    Personally I find the '80s bullying trope more annoying and uncomfortable than anything else in the film, and it took up a lot of time.
    Yeah, it's jumping on the Stranger Things bandwagon, I guess. I pretty much liked Stranger Things, though.


    Not everything deserves an explanation, least of all in horror, but I think the problem is decidedly the opposite. Or maybe IT is stuck in that swamp-land that requires either more ambiguity or less, but seeing all the tricks repeatedly makes it seem unambiguous to the point that there being no rhyme or reason to what the creature can or can't do is a bit grating - it reveals too much of itself for that to work.
    In this case, I think maybe we're just thinking about the term ambiguity in different ways. the fact that the monster acts 'without rhyme or reason' is a sign of the type of ambiguity I was thinking of. Its 'laws' aren't defined well, in other words; the character is too 'blurry' to be scary, due to its overly wide range of tricks and characteristics.

    I agree with you, as far as I can tell - the story struck the wrong balance of ambiguity.

    Superhero universes have rules that can't be broken in order to suspend disbelief; the advantage horror monsters tend to have is that they can get away with just about any feat in realm of magical realism, until such a point that they are too pointedly defined and amass unnecessary rules for themselves. A restrained creature, a known one, is far less scary.
    I don't know. Many of the horror movies I can think of do in fact define their threats and monsters quite clearly. It's kind of like the idea of the uncanny valley - too powerful, and a monster is dull and likely to be poorly drawn. It has to be a bit earthly. Personal limits and laws provide tone, definition, and character, which are necessary for good monsters.

    If you know it, the video game Soma is a great example of a story with clearly defined monsters, and one of the scariest stories I've run into. (I'm writing from my phone right now so I won't ramble on with examples.)

    This a different thing from giving away how the protagonists and monsters will interact. That is where unknowns should be.

    It has an orgy/train, or something. This day and age I'm just happy novelists can get away with writing whatever the fuck they want. Oddly enough the biggest pushback to this idea lately is about writing characters an author purportedly ought not represent or identify with; other genders, cultures and races.
    I hear people saying this is a problem a lot more than I see the problem. Who's a public figure that's actually said this about authors (or anyone) within the last few months, for example? I can't think of anyone. On the other hand, I see people talking about this supposed pushback on a regular basis. (Just today in a facebook group, actually.) the collective reaction seems way overblown.

    If you think that I was implying a similar thing, I wasn't. I agree that authors should be able to write whatever they want. Saying that something is reprehensible isn't the same thing as saying it shouldn't be written, and I enjoy plenty of things that I consider reprehensible (like mafia III, for example - the definition of wonderful gratuitous violence.)
    "Better not to feel too much until the crisis ends—and if it never ends, at least we’ll have suffered a little less, developed a useful dullness...The constant—and very real—fear of being hurt, the fear of death, of intolerable loss, or even of “mere” humiliation, leads each of us, the citizens and prisoners of the conflict, to dampen our own vitality, our emotional and intellectual range, and to cloak ourselves in more and more protective layers until we suffocate." - Toni Morrison

  6. #1706
    Meae Musae Servus KOI's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    438
    The Dark Tower. What a waste of everything.
    I believe I've discovered the key to being prolific: stay busy.

  7. #1707
    dormant jigglypuff's Avatar
    Type
    xxxx
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    zone 10a
    Posts
    5,917
    ^ @Blorg @Faust
    so these are my initial thoughts... SPOILER WARNING.

    it was a great showcase for special effects, but left nothing to the imagination. i was so annoyed when they showed pennywise opening his mouth to show the teeth going back into infinity. pennywise the physical clown was so much of a constant, loud presence that there weren't satisfying moments of character development/setting immersion you could settle in and then get surprised or creeped out. the entire movie was noisy. the tone also felt confused to me. during some moments they seemed to be going with a classic "horror" feel and i thought that could've been done really well, like if it was an adult horror movie with children main characters, who talked and had thinking patterns like kids. that's what i was hoping for, but it became too magical and fantastical and flashy and weirdly harry potter-ish? i thought it felt superficial and too on-the-nose, even in how the plot moved along as a sequence of events, boom boom boom. i couldn't become immersed in any of the settings, or get to know any of the characters, or feel any sort of depth to their friendship.

    i don't wanna compare this to stand by me cuz maybe that's not fair (i don't know what is or isn't) but i think a smaller production feel would've worked well for the story and setting.

    what i liked was the casting and what i could tell was being attempted, showing the kids dealing with a world they didn't understand and was much larger than them, showing them confronting their fears. there was some thought put into camera angles and such to make the house seem much bigger and scarier, etc. but i hated how the movie became "fighting pennywise" action sequences.

    there's still gonna be a part 2 i think, which i assume is when they go back to derry as adults. it would be a pleasant surprise if they actually alluded to the kids having sex in the sewers in part 2. i read the book a really long time ago and that was truly a wtf moment. i would like that, tbh, cuz lol.

    the story isn't for kids and i don't think they should make it appealing in any way like a "kid's movie." if it's a story about the end of innocence, i think they should go all the way with that, and make it really creepy, really painful (with taste).
    Last edited by jigglypuff; 09-15-2017 at 08:19 PM.

  8. #1708
    Homo siderius Sistamatic's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,563
    INTPx Award Winner
    Bojack Horseman season four is a masterpiece. A single masterpiece in that each episode is only a part of the whole, and it is the whole thing that works. It is, at once, the silliest and deepest thing I've seen in a long time.
    Insults are effective only where emotion is present. -- Spock, "Who Mourns for Adonais?" Stardate 3468.1.

    I'm not avoiding socializing I'm helping socializing avoid me! --MoneyJungle

  9. #1709
    Member
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    933
    I watched this film 'the discovery' on Netflix. Not a heaps notable film. But I thought it was interesting. Only has 40% on Rotten Tomatoes. The premise is that someone has discovered, scientifically, that there is some kind of 'soul' and that it goes somewhere when a person dies. The bad rating on Rotten Tomatoes seems to reflect that the story gets a bit lost along the way and doesn't really have a very good flow to it. But I thought the premise was intriguing enough. It's a strange alternative reality. Sort of similar to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, where they have that machine that lets people selectively wipe their memory.

  10. #1710
    Member Karl Pilkington's Avatar
    Type
    xxxx
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Manc
    Posts
    41
    The Exorcist - brilliant catholic church propaganda film. Get a catholic priest to visit your home to rid the evil spirits. He uses his pact with Satan to make them temporarily leave and increases his parishionership in the long run by keeping them scared and confused.
    Last edited by Karl Pilkington; 09-16-2017 at 09:24 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •