DVDs and Films You Have Watched Recently #2

[Famous Mortimer]

Two films last night. Well, the first half of one film and all of another.

 

Dead Snow

Norwegian zombie Nazi film. Surely this must be awesome, right? Well, after 35 minutes, when not a single zombified Nazi had turned up on screen, and all it was was a bunch of douchebag Norwegians in a log cabin, I turned it off. You promise me zombie Nazis, you

[Loki]

Two films last night. Well, the first half of one film and all of another.

 

Dead Snow

Norwegian zombie Nazi film. Surely this must be awesome, right? Well, after 35 minutes, when not a single zombified Nazi had turned up on screen, and all it was was a bunch of douchebag Norwegians in a log cabin, I turned it off. You promise me zombie Nazis, you

[Famous Mortimer]

Eh, I'll take the hit of not watching it. If they did something other than just establish that the students were ripe for an eating, then I'd have been more inclined to carry on watching it. And why did that old dude just turn up to warn them about the zombies, then sod off, then get eaten?

 

I'll give a film a fair chance to entertain me, but given life is finite and all that, if it's not grabbed me by half an hour, given me some reason to carry on with it, I'll turn it off. I may have missed a few slow-burning classics that way, but I've been saved thousands of hours of tedium too.

[NEWM]

Watched Adventureland yesterday. Really can't make my mind up. A very watchable pile of shit, but seemingly so unaware of how pretentious it was, it annoyed me at times. The main girl in it was absolutely beautiful, but I fail to see how the lead got that job, or any job that isn't a "Michael Cera for your kid's party" job. Not as funny as I thought it would be either, but again, as decent a waste of time film as I've seen in ages. Such conflict.

[JLM]

Adventureland is indeed extremely watchable. Jesse Eisenberg is exactly that by the way; the go to guy if you can't get Michael Cera. I don't think he does Michael Cera much worse than Cera does in fairness to him. He's decent in Zombieland too. Leave Jesse alone.

 

Right, I went to the god dang cinema last night. Last time I went was to see Korean B-movie horror-comedy Norwegian Woods which I'd recommend to anyone if you can find a way to get hold of it.

 

Anyway, yeah, last night:

 

First, a word about the trailers. They were AWFUL. The highlight of the pre-movie stuff was the stunning 3D Courvoisier advert.

 

Anyway, we got:

 

Mel Gibson out for revenge and speaking in a gravelly voice. I swear to god it looked like a spoof. Plus there's a line that says "You'd better decide whether you're hangin' on the cross, or bangin' in the nails". This line is hilarious in itself. However, I bet it initially said "are you Jesus, or are you A JEW?" but the PR people suggested a re-write. Anyway, it looks like utter garbage. A google search reveals that it's called EDGE OF DARKNESS. Lol.

 

Then there was Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief. Seems to want to be Harry Potter. I shall pass.

 

Clash of the Titans looked uninspiring. They seemed really pleased with the big scorpion monster but it looked a bit Xboxy to mee. Liam Neeson as Zeus though, that might be fun.

 

The saving grace was the trailer for Piranha 3D. We're screening "James Cameron's Piranha 2: THE SPAWNING" at our house on Sunday (13 of us watching, which is a rather high turn out for a Sunday evening shit movie night) and it seemed like perfect timing for this trailer to come on.

 

Anyway, there was a film. It was called Avatar.

 

Thoughts? Well, what everyone else said really. It's a heavy-handed and entirely unsubtle allegory for the Iraq war, most of the characters are corny archetypes and the plot is fairly by the numbers. I thought it was pretty grim and genuinely sad at times, but in a very in your face hollywood Blockbuster sort of way.

 

That said, it was still a highly enjoyable cinematic experience. The visuals are absolutely stunning. Everyone's been harping on about this and it's unashamedly the major selling point, but it really is absolutely beautiful to look at and to listen to. The debate on here a while back about whether or not that means anything was quite frustrating for me to read. If taking enjoyment from the visuals and sound is wrong then you might as well read a book. You'll invariably get a more in-depth understanding of the characters and plot and you won't have to concern yourself with evil CGI.

 

To completely write off a film sold largely on the merits of its visuals is to miss the point of cinema for me. It's an audiovisual art form. There's a reason films win awards for their sound and visuals. Creating a visual spectacle that can still amaze people who have pretty much seen everything is a remarkable achievment in itself. There's a reason the visual effects teams win awards and deserve them as much as anyone else involved in a production. It shouldn't be all there is to making films, but to deny that it's a massive part of it seems misguided to me. It's like when people dismiss comedies and treat them as a lesser form of entertainment because they're not "No Country for Old Men". If their goal is to make you laugh for 90 minutes and you find yourself doing that then please don't deny that you enjoyed it because it's not a proper film. It depends what you set out to do.

 

Avatar's primary goal is to provide a mindblowing visual experience. It's a spectacle. In a time when so many of us have big fancy TVs and blu-ray players and surround sound systems at home and when pretty much all the electronic entertainment we could want is available for free online, I think you occasionally need a film that simply has to be seen in the cinema. Avatar delivers this and it's absolutely gorgeous. Not just in the execution either. The designs and art style are incredible too.

 

It's not something I'll be buying on DVD and I certainly wouldn't watch it on TV. That doesn't mean that it can't absolutely dazzle you for three hours if you want an evening of escapism at the cinema. I don't understand why some people can't see the merit in that. Would I recommend that it be considered one of the greatest movies of all time? No. Would I recommend that you go and see it at the cinema just to bask in its beauty? Absolutely.

[Chest Rockwell]

Anyway, there was a film. It was called Avatar.

 

Thoughts? Well, what everyone else said really. It's a heavy-handed and entirely unsubtle allegory for the Iraq war, most of the characters are corny archetypes and the plot is fairly by the numbers. I thought it was pretty grim and genuinely sad at times, but in a very in your face hollywood Blockbuster sort of way.

 

 

 

I finally got around to seeing Avatar last night also.

 

On the whole 'heavy handed commentary on Iraq' thing - what bothered me a little about this was not that they chose to do it. I couldn't really care less about that.. It was the way they did. They really seemed to shoehorn it in. SPOILER - Highlight the black box to read

When the General gave his speech about "fighting terror with terror" - what had they done to establish the Na'vi as terrorists? I kinda missed that. They didn't seem to bother drawing that parrallel at all.. Unless they wanted me to believe that the couple second clip of Jake smashing the cameras out of the bulldozers is what they used to sell 'agressive native behavior' to their troops?

Maybe there was something cut out that explained it better.. but they would have been better off just cutting out those lines that seemed to be there for no other reason that to explicitly and ham-fistedly draw those comparisons to Iraq.

[JLM]

Yeah it was totally forced. The "fighting terror with terror" line actually got a laugh from most people in the cinema. Until then it seemed like they had no pretense at all about why they were there, which was fine when they were essentially playing the role of evil foreign invaders.

[Chest Rockwell]

Exactly that.

 

The line that got a big audible laugh in our screening though was SPOILER - Highlight the black box to read

in the final fight where the general was in the suit and about to get deaded when he said "nothing's over while I'm still breathing!"

.. The delivery of that line was pretty funny.

 

I've just thought of something else actually.. If you follow the intended comparisons through then it is really funny that even in a film criticising US military action there's still nothing better than a good Marine.SPOILER - Highlight the black box to read

Jake rides into town, does everything they can do better, bangs the chief's daughter and tames the big red dragon

. Talk about your cultural imperialism!

 

I am of course just picking on silly things now; It's what you'd expect from a big Hollywood movie..

[Loki]

Mel Gibson out for revenge and speaking in a gravelly voice. I swear to god it looked like a spoof. Plus there's a line that says "You'd better decide whether you're hangin' on the cross, or bangin' in the nails". This line is hilarious in itself. However, I bet it initially said "are you Jesus, or are you A JEW?" but the PR people suggested a re-write. Anyway, it looks like utter garbage. A google search reveals that it's called EDGE OF DARKNESS. Lol.

 

This is really depressing for so many reasons.

 

Firstly, the original Edge Of Darkness series is possibly the best tv series ever made, certainly in the UK. Secondly, the new film version is actually being directed by the guy who directed the series, so you'd think he'd protect his own legacy. Thirdly, it's Mel Gibson's first on-screen role in about 8 years, and I like Gibson and think he's a decent movie actor (there, I said it).

 

Given all that, the fact that it looks fairly likely to be fucking awful is a bit sad.

[JLM]

Oh no, I didn't know it'd be tarnishing the legacy of something good.

 

Honestly man it looks dire. Also, I always found Mel Gibson to be a likeable and sympathetic lead actor in both comedies and bad ass action films, I just really struggle to separate what I see on screen from all the other crap I've heard about him. Oh, and South Park's depiction of course. It's not normally a problem for me either. I usually don't particularly care what media gossip there is about an actor or actress if I enjoy their work, but Gibson does seem like an A-class wanker.

 

Mor overwhelming than all of that though was that the trailer in all seriousness looked like a parody of Payback or something. It got two audible laughs from almost everyone in the cinema when the whole thing was deadly serious in tone. In fact, I may go and see it in case it ends up like "The Happening" where everyone realised it was horseshit about ten minutes in and then just laughed it up for the rest.

[Egg Shen]

Two films last night. Well, the first half of one film and all of another.

 

Dead Snow

Norwegian zombie Nazi film. Surely this must be awesome, right? Well, after 35 minutes, when not a single zombified Nazi had turned up on screen, and all it was was a bunch of douchebag Norwegians in a log cabin, I turned it off. You promise me zombie Nazis, you

[Famous Mortimer]

This is really depressing for so many reasons.

 

Firstly, the original Edge Of Darkness series is possibly the best tv series ever made, certainly in the UK. Secondly, the new film version is actually being directed by the guy who directed the series, so you'd think he'd protect his own legacy. Thirdly, it's Mel Gibson's first on-screen role in about 8 years, and I like Gibson and think he's a decent movie actor (there, I said it).

 

Given all that, the fact that it looks fairly likely to be fucking awful is a bit sad.

Completely agree. The original series is amazing, and if you see it for cheap, then get hold of the double-DVD set of it, crammed with decent, interesting special features. Maybe the director guy has just ceased to care in the last 25 years. Wonder if it'll still have a thinly-veiled reference to the SWP in the first few minutes like the old one did?

 

For them to remake something like this, you'd have to imagine a decent reason, at least. I hope so.

 

Oh, and ebb:

 

never understand people who turn off movies after half hour!?

Because I wasn't enjoying it and didn't want to waste another hour on it? I also fairly clearly said that while I may have missed a few classics with crap first half hours, by having this rule down the years I've saved myself thousands of hours of misery.

 

I can't understand why people carry on watching films that are shit, personally.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Famous Mortimer

[Loki]

I tell you what it is, Mortimer. Mel Gibson was a big fan of the original, so wanted to do it. Just like Nic Cage was a big fan of the original Wicker Man, so wanted to remake it. I really think these idiots think that by remaking their fave film with them in it, they are somehow paying homage to the thing they like, whereas because they are hugely egotistical Hollywood actors, what they are actually doing is taking a great big shit down the throat of the original classic.

 

The one honorable exception to this, IMO, is Clooney's remake of Solaris which is actually quite good, but then Clooney's in a different category of clever to those others.

[Mr. Seven]

Speaking of LOL-worthy moments in Avatar, the bit where the APC-bound general whips out a fucking MACHETE the size of a house had me in stitches.

[Loki]

He was the highlight of the film really, that character. He looked like he'd just got back from LV-426 having blown away a few Aliens.