Burt Gummer’s Rec Room January 2012 Archive
A gathering place for firearms enthusiasts, paranoid survivalists and those who worship at the Church of Chang
Welcome to 2012. This is meant to be the end of the world this year, but luckily we’re well stocked up for the collapse of civilisation with enough ammo to satisfy the Chinese Army, and plenty of rations.
Disclaimer: This is the part of the Church that is the most no holds barred. None of it is intended with malice, and although it can on occasion seem a little bit fraught, it is banter rather than venom. So, be warned that this is like taking a naked swim in a piranha tank and not recommended for the faint of heart.
Barfy
kloipy
Echo the Bunnyman
Judge Droid
Jarv
ThereWolf
Xiphos0311
Definitely Pakistan’s morning. Despite ripping out the three bowlers with scores of 0, 12 and 0 they bowled crap at the other end and allowed Akmal (who I thought was out yesterday, for some reason) to put on 40 himself.
Bad bowling at the tail, very bad.
Then to lose Strauss was a blow. Having said that, I’m relying on other players and it wasn’t unsurprising.
Oh, and two crap referrals this morning. England got one that shouldn’t have been, and I don’t think Strauss was out either.
If the DRS is going to make things worse, then I’m not to sure about it. I suppose it’s better than the alternatives, but both the “catches” given I don’t think came off the bat. Strauss was a leg side strangle, and I reckon he missed it, and there was no mark on the hotspot thingy. Ajmal was a bat pad, and I also reckon he missed it, but he was too far out for hotspot.
That’s bad umpiring from the 2 in the middle and the third umpire.
I suppose, though, that they were consistent. Bowden should have given neither out, but the evidence wasn’t good enough to overturn him. It’s Bowden’s fault, really.
We’re on again.
Cook and Trott facing. Could be a long boring day. I do hope so.
Given the fuck up this morning, and how long it took England to get the tail out, If these two bat out these two sessions, we’ll have a lead of about 50-80ish. That’s nowhere near enough to hit out tomorrow morning. Curses, this means that if we want to win then someone is going to have to get a bit of a shufty on. I don’t think England have the batsmen to do that. Well, they do, but they need the platform first, and effectively 50-3 is not it. They don’t have an explosive opener.
I think Strauss will definitely be gone by the end of the year. He’s not scoring for shit, and his captaincy is frankly fucking ropey nowadays (fucking Tremlett taking the new ball), I don’t want them to make Cook captain, because although he is FEC, the England captain’s average always collapses, and I think he’s too conservative- a straighter version of Strauss, if you will.
That leaves a particularly unappatesing selection. I’d be tempted to give it back to KP, apart from that I think he’ll also be gone in a year. England need someone that can last 3 years. Which leaves Shermi (please god no), Trott (please god no), Prior (please god no), Broad (Please god no), or Swann (Maybe). I think it will almost have to be cook by default.
Cook scoring at a very Misbah-esque type rate. A whopping Strike Rate at 10. On the other hand, Trott’s been at the charlie at lunch time and is scoring at a very un-Trott like rate of 77.
Very strange. Get your fucking heads down, that’s what you two are for. You need to stay in and demoralise the fuckers.
Shite.
Curtains. Cook’s gone and another pathetic leg side strangle. Fuck.
Right. Time to start thinking about the next test.
This comment is why Aussies think the Poms are weak. No matter how shit we play (and we’ve played like shit in the past few years) we always look to turn it around. You guys, barely at the half way point, start talking about the next test.
That’s what decades of being routinely tonked does to the fans. The team don’t think like that (for which I’m thankful).
That’s a stroke of luck, though, they’ve lost a bowler.
2-25… Not looking good!
2 things need to happen. Pietersen needs to show he gives a shit and put in a big innings, and Bell needs to grow a pair and show that when the chips are down he can battle through for a good score.
Yup.
KP did it at Lords last summer when England were right in the mire, and scored a double ton. So he can do it. Bell? is, how shall I put it, severely lacking in testicular fortitude. On the other hand, Morgan is playing for his career this series, so he can maybe do it as well.
hehehehe
Funny.
Why? He is.
He’s had lots of chances, there are batsmen behind him waiting. His average is only 36 (which in a team as dominant as England have been in the last 2 years is appalling), he doesn’t offer anything else.
He’ll be nailed on for the one day side, but he has ropey technique for tests.
Fucking KP. Dickhead.
There’s no excuse for that. None.
Christ. I’ve been rude about Aussie batsmen, Indian batsmen doing precisely what the stupid cunt has just done: Played a stupid fucking shot and holed out.
I hope one of the bowlers punches his fucking gourd in when he gets in to the dressing room. If I was Broad or Anderson (or even Tremlett) I’d be fucking fuming at this. They keep Pakistan down to below par, just, and then three of the top 4 Batsmen get themselves out- all down the leg side.
Strauss was unlucky, Cook and KP were stupid at best.
Pietersen just doesn’t give a shit. He’s a completely 100% selfish batsman. If he scores big, great, if he doesn’t score, who cares? He doesn’t seem to build an innings according to a greater plan. He doesn’t try to stay in, playing sensibly, when the team needs it.
He’s just gotten away with it by pulling off a big score every now and then. I honestly wouldn’t select him if it was my choice.
Not true of the “new” KP. Who incidentally isn’t as good. He’s done it twice in the last year- Lords being the most spectacular, where he scored astonishingly slowly for the first 100, then at faster than a run a ball for the second. He’s nearly finished anyway.
Okay, so how about the 9 innings where he went in all guns blazing no matter what the state of the game? You can’t do it 10% of the time. You need to do it all the time. If you’re in a position to come in and have a tonk, go for it. But you have to use discretion.
Oh dear. Well Pietersen and Bell have both stayed true to form (as I see it anyway).
This is a definite continuation of their tour form. Bell got two fucking superb deliveries, so can be a little bit absolved, because that can happen to anyone. KP got himself out twice, so is a cunt.
This is horseshit.
3 batsmen get themselves out. THREE!
One bad decision, but he shouldn’t have been playing at it anyway. The fucking bowlers can’t dig them out every time.
Oh well, cometh the hour, cometh the Morgan.
Shit. I think Trott’s gone as well. This is an exact repeat of the first innings if he has.
Christ. The Guardian have just put up that in their last two innings Bell and KP scored 410 runs between them. Then they come here and score a whopping 10. Off 4.
I worry about the England batting. Bowling wise, we’ve got lots, but it feels like if Cook doesn’t get in then the rest of the side just folds.
A lot rests on Trott here.
I don’t fancy Morgan to stay around too long. So Trott, Prior, Broad and Swann (outrageous that these last three should be) have all the work to do after the fucking dismal showing from the top order. What pisses me off is that they’ll tinker with the bowlers because the batsmen failed. That’s usually what they do.
Did Bell get a pair?
No. It was really good play from Pakistan.
He’d just gone down and played a fucking lovely shot for a 4, then Ajmal produced a bitch of a ball that pinned him. It was really top drawer cricket all round.
The Guardian have just jinxed Trott-
He’ll be out in about an over now. Which is annoying, because these two need to dig in and score a fucking huge amount each.
Prior and the tail should not be having to do it again. We have serious problems against Spin.
This is really interesting:
I’d also add that there are pitches being prepared in most countries that are helping the bowlers a bit. Which hasn’t been the case in most countries (India) in the last few years. Even England, which gives shit loads of help to Bowlers has played tests on that fucking pudding in Cardiff.
When was England last test match? In the summer wasn’t it?
September.
Morgan’s gone. Another good ball. He never looked comfortable.
*edit* Having just watched the replay, it was an OK ball, but he was back when he should have been forward *end edit*
So, Prior, Trott and the Tail.
So it’s 4 months since their last test. That, to me, doesn’t seem like a heavy workload.
The Aussies didn’t have a test for six months after the Ashes (thankfully). I know when you factor in the 2020 and One Dayers (which don’t really seem to happen a lot anymore, due to 2020 of course) it does add more to the workload, but most 2020 teams are different to test sides for the most part.
I’m wondering about rustiness a bit- they weren’t great in the first test against Sri Lanka last summer. Well, the bowlers weren’t.
They had that fucking stupid two months in India, playing that pointless ODI series. However, most of the test side didn’t go, or at least I don’t think they did.
I genuinely think they may be a bit undercooked- like India were when they arrived in England last summer, because it looks like England have done exactly what India did: rested half the test team, and sent the rest on a stupid, needless, money grabbing tour. I’m checking how many of them went now.
Having checked:
So, 4 of this starting 11, 8 of the squad.
Grrrrr. Stupid.
Weirdly, though, that looks like almost the same Indian side currently making cunts of themselves down under.
I wonder what the balance is.
The Aussies definitely needed 6 months off after the Ashes mangling. Mostly to sort out their selection panel, drop some underperformers and whatnot. Which, to be fair, they did. Although how much of a test this Indian shambles is is open to debate, and they got a stroke of luck here and there.
Tea-
Definitely the Pakistanis session again.
That’s very bad. England have, I reckon, won 2 of the sessions so far and lost 5. 3 of them badly.
Need to look seriously at the batsmen. Alright, 2010 & 2011 were pretty spectacular for them, but Strauss and Morgan are looking wonky. KP looks past it, and Bell has mental weakness, although he is much better than he was.
That leaves, basically, 2 batsmen that are OK- Cook and Trott. KP and Bell in particular look to need them to set a platform. I’d like to see Strauss retire before he’s pushed, and I’d pick Lyth to replace.
Failing that, I’d like Strauss to go anyway, and then I’d push Trott to open (he basically is anyway). I’d then shunt Bell up to 3, KP at 4, Taylor at 5.
Number 6 is a problem with no viable solution. Morgan and Bopara have both had untold chances and made a donkey’s rear end of it. Which means going for another kid. I’m not sure about 2 kids debuting at the same time with 2 notoriously flaky players above them. We’ve done it in the past, and it’s been a fucking shambles. Which means, I think, that one of Morgan, Strauss or Bopara will get an unearned reprieve for a few tests.
Sometimes you’ve just got to call a spade a spade and make the tough decision. The Aussies finally did it (mostly) and now have a opening pair that look as though they could be quite useful. Morgan and Bopara have both shown they can’t hack it at the top level. Time to give that chance to someone else, until you find someone who can. You’ve also got to have your established batsmen perform. This is how Australia got into their position. They’re established batsmen were all playing like dogshit at the same time. The strength of their batting line up during the Taylor/Waugh era was that if, say, Langer was misfiring, you’d have 3 or 4 batsmen in form ready to go. There was always a couple of guys in form to put in a good partnership. When they all fail, you end up nearly getting all out for 20 like we did in SA. 9 for 21 I think they were. And numbers 10 and 11 wacked 26 runs. That’s pathetic. Looks like they have turned it around a bit now. Still need Marsh to cement his place at number 3, and with Cowan and Warner opening, Watson can move to 6.
Leaving aside that I’m probably overreacting to 1 bad test, and should therefore hold judgement until after Sri Lanka (and England have a habit of coming back very well under Flower, also when they do lose they lose badly under Flower):
I agree- and that’s how England have been operating for the last year- the Batsmen have all made scores.
The problem starts with Strauss.
Nobody is going to want to drop the most successful captain (but not the best) England have had in a long time. However, his average is declining like a rock, I’ve never rated his captaincy anyway, and I think it’s an added burden for him. Therefore, he won’t be able to turn it round like Hussey.
Thankfully, one place where we’ve got options aplenty is opening.
The middle order is a concern. I don’t think Bopara or Morgan are the answer. I’m sick of Morgan being talked about in terms of potential, the fucker has had 13 tests now, and averages 35, bolstered by a few tons. Bopara is exactly the same, but is quite a good bowler. However, with England’s bowling attack, we don’t need another support bowler, so it’s irrelevant and he’s shit in the field. KP is a moron, but has bought himself some time with a very good 2011. However, he’s also the wrong side of 30, and has always been a reflex player. He’s got about a year left.
Bell is Bell. I hate him, because I think he’s a)spineless and b) a cunt. However, he’s 28, and has had a very good 2011, so probably has bought himself some time.
Prior and below are absolutely fine, and I wouldn’t swap England’s bowling resources for any other nation.
The problem with English selectors, though, is that the Bowlers will take the hit for this when the Batsmen are clearly at fault. It’s bullshit to ask Broad, Jimmy, (3rd Seamer) and Swann/ Panesar to defend shitty fucking totals. That they do so often is because they are that good as a unit. In the summer, I’d like to look seriously at the likes of Lyth, Hildeth, Taylor, Maynard, Bairstow who is there or thereabouts (and he’s a keeper anyway).
The other thing to consider is that England in the 90’s reacted the way I have to this, and dropped half the team. This in turn destabilised them so badly that they turned into an absolute shambles. The Ashes of 1993 were a good example- England used a fucking ridiculous amount of players (as did Australia in the last Ashes). Consistency of selection and a lethal bowling attack is what got us to number 1. Finding the next level of batsmen is what we have to do to stay there. So the order needs building around Trott, Cook and Bell and we need to find three to go with them. I’d look for 1 in the summer, and 2 next winter and look to ease KP, Strauss and Morgan/ Bopara out forever by this time next year.
Recall that you were laying in thick and fast to Hughes, who has an average of about 36 from a similar number of tests. Hughes is also an opener, a much tougher spot than coming in a 5 or 6 like Morgan.
Recall also that you were staunchly defending Hughes.
Morgan has exactly the same problem as Hughes: Shit technique. Albeit manifested differently: Hughes has no idea where his off stump is, and is prone to hanging his bat out there. Morgan does that fucking odd shuffle thing that in theory allows him to improvise, but in tests is a liability, because he’s moving too much before the ball comes in.
Morgan is a limited overs player. That’s it. I wouldn’t pick him for the test side, although I would pick him for ODI’s. I’d pick Taylor. In the summer, I expect to see him in at 6 instead of Morgan and Bopara.
The other difference is that there’s no point sending him off to his county to work on it. It isn’t something you can fix- therefore you dispose of him altogether. Hughes, on the other hand, you should be able to fix, but he’s so fucking stupid that he doesn’t learn. However, given 5 years, he could come back. It depends how strong state Cricket is. If Australia are lucky, Warner won’t follow Hughes trajectory, so you won’t need him at all barring injury.
Really though, at the end of the day, neither are test players at the moment. In 5 years time Hughes may be, but I wouldn’t bet on it. It depends entirely on how strong State Cricket is, and if he can find a county for the Aussie Winter. If he can, then he may stand a chance, because playing in England will teach him where his off stump is, because of the moving ball, but he needs to play all summer.
At the moment, the pair of them are shit test players.
And that, as they say, is that. Trott batted really well, and threw away all his hard work with a fucking horrible shot that he should be ashamed of.
An innings defeat could be on the cards here.
I’m thinking about 10 wicket defeat. You know, the kind of pathetic one where they have to score 4 runs or something.
About sums it up:
Cricinfo-
Nope, Prior gone. Innings and 30 runs.
May as well have a thrash here. Like when we got humped by Australia at Headingly in 2009. Broad and Swann went in and bashed the ball to all corners.
Still annihalated, but at least I’ll get a laugh out of it. This has buggered my lunch hour. I was going to the pub.
8/88.
Ouch.
Nope. Spoke to soon- No ball.
That was really funny, actually. Swann was almost back in the pavilion and had to come back out again.
Well, 7-89 is still very, very ouch.
Crap. Wretched batting.
This is what’s galling me:
Strauss: Crap Decision, unlucky. Crap shot though.
Cook: Crap shot
Trott: Crap shot
KP: Crap shot
Bell: Great ball
Morgan: Good ball.
4 of the top 6 got themselves out- So, you can only say that two wickets fell to good bowling. The rest was abject batting.
Pakistan will prepare two “chief executives” pitches for the next 2. Watch.
Come on. Have a fucking splosh. There’s no merit to defending maiden’s out.
Huzzah!
There we go. That’s much more fun.
100 up.
Wooooo!
*cries*
This is brilliant, and a nigh-on perfect example of straw-clasping during the 90’s that us English fans used to do:
That’s so true. I used to do it all the time as well.
Hehehehehe
10 off the over. I love tail enders batting. “4 runs. Top edged over keeper”.
Yah boo sucks.
That’s the fun over. Still, Swann just clouted a 6.
We’re in danger of making them bat again.
I wonder if we can declare and save the embarrassment of having to go out to field one over. Or get out first. I’m not sure which is worse.
10 runs. 1 wicket.
To make them bat again that is.
I’m not sure I want them to. It’s terrible that Swann has accounted for 1/5 of the total team’s runs, and Prior 1/5th.
That’s over 40% between two players. This would be fine if they’ve made 600 in the first innings, but out of 332?
Andersons funny. He’s batting out the first 4-5 deliveries, then getting a single to get Swann on strike. Around the wrong way isn’t it?
I’m bored of this now. Get it over with.
He’s protecting Swann’s average.
Actually, I’ve no idea what they’re doing.
Arse.
Well played Graeme.
Right.
New Plan. Swann to hit a massive double ton, ably supported by Jimmy, and then England to rip them out for less than 50.
Actually, he’s batted really well. A bit sloggy this time out (but who can blame him), but all in all he’s put the top order to shame. Mind you, Boycott’s gran with a stick of rhubarb could do that.
Eh?
Jimmy’s just hit a 6. That can’t have been intentional.
And that’s that.
14 to defend. Not sure that’s enough.
Probably needed a few more. Just to be safe.
Dunno. I reckon if they try and chase it, we could get them. Obviously, we know they’re short of time and there are real demons in the pitch and everything.
Missed chance in the slips goes for 4. That would be insulting to Pakistan to lose a couple of silly wickets, and would make England look better than they deserve.
I hope Anderson sticks down to rank long hops now and gets this over. Or we make the batsmen bowl. This is unfair on the bowlers.
Attaboy, Broad. That’s filth. Now do it again and let’s go home.
Right. Interviews. I want to hear Strauss. Explain that omnishambles, cunt.
Swann gone.
Fuck. Not even going to get an entertaining thrash.
I agree about 20/20. 5 years ago Morgan wouldn’t have got anywhere near the test side. Certainly not this run he’s had. It’s based entirely on how good he is in the shorter forms.
Nope. Wrong. I said he needs to go back to state cricket to sort out his action. I was defending him in terms of his potential as a batsmen when you were harping on and on about how shit he is. He does have a lot of potential. But he can only fulfill that potential if he sorts himself out. And luckily, Mitch will be back playing state cricket so Hughes will have plenty of opportunity to sort out his action against a pie chucker.
Presuming Mitch will be landing it on the strip.
Morgan is meant to have bags of potential. I just disagree, because I think Hughes is stupid. The technical flaw you can sort out, but the innate cretinism you can’t. It’s one thing having a horrible technique, and he does, but it’s the manner of dismissal that is so bad- it’s the same every time. He’ll probably turn into a prolific state player, and a shit international.
Maybe. And yes, he is stupid. But he’s 22 or something. He has probably played by instinct all his life, and well, doesn’t have the self control, concentration or patience (or all three) to play test cricket at the moment. Which is why he needs to be in state cricket, where he should have those tendencies coached out of him. Unfortunately, fucking 2020 is dominating state cricket now, and the Sheffield Shield has taken a bit of a back seat. Which is fucking ridiculous. Really, Warner succeeding so far in Test cricket is a bit of a blow, because we need less 2020 and more of the long format.
He hasn’t. I thought that, until someone pointed the stats out to me.
I agree. He’s a moron. In fact, he’s a complete moron. However, in the last two years he’s changed his attitude, probably because he’s getting on and his reactions aren’t as good. He’s still prone to brainfarts (I wanted to punch him when he was caught at long on trying to get to a ton with a 6), but I’ve sat through a hideous amount of grindy-style innings from him.
Anyway, that (I’m watching it) was a fucking superb ball- would have got anyone. Waste of a review from Shermi.
That was a fucker
Nah, I was laughing at the “he can maybe do it” bit. He’s shithouse, which is why that kind of optimism is amusing.
Straw grabbing.
He’s a fantastic one day batsman, but I agree, I think he’s a shit Test player.
Just hasn’t got the patience, at all, and his Technique is so geared to limited overs cricket that he can’t adapt.
Nah, it’s not straw grabbing. He’s shithouse and you’re deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
I’m not deluding myself. I’m not an aussie talking about Hughes. He’s a shit test player. Not cut out for it, at all, and this will probably be his last series.
IN theory, everything is set up for him in this series: He’s meant to be great against spin, he’s played more in the subcontinent than anyone else in the England side and so forth. However, that stupid shuffle thing he does before each shot means that he’s always in the wrong position.
He can do it in 20/20 and ODI’s where the fields are set differently, because he can improv something, but in a test, he’ll get out for naff all more often than not.
Shit. Forgot about the Sri Lanka series. I’ll probably have to put up with him there as well, because of the touring party.
That’ll be it though.
Yup.
Very, very bad batting. Strauss can count himself unlucky, but you shouldn’t get out to leg side strangles, Cook (of all people) should never, ever, ever get out like that.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Expendasucks Poo is PG13. And that fat ginger cunt is making excuses for it because he’s a whore.
What? What the fuck is the point of that?
It’s because the first film didn’t make enough cash probably. It’s got nothing to do with the fact that it wasn’t very good. It’s the rating. Yes, the rating.
I watched it at the weekend. It was alright. Passable.
Last night I watched Source Code, and I’ve got a different problem with it that I’ll go into in a moment. I also watched Red Hill, which was an odd beast. The score made it feel very much like a Western, which is obviously what they were going for. Good film.
Source Code:
You mentioned the body hijacking, but I’ve got another problem with the end. From what we know of his character, he’s liable to rob the next poor fucker’s body he’s put into. So, we assume that the timeline splits in two when he stops the bombing. However, at the next bombing, then presumably the timeline will split in two again. Eventually, there’s going to be about 3,000,000 Gyllenhal’s wandering about wearing meat suits.
I liked Red Hill. It was meant to be a western, yes.
Source Code… Doesn’t Vera top him in the first universe? And he lives on in the meat suit in the second universe?
She does.
However, because he never entered the Source Code his body is still in the box in the second universe. He exists as whatshisname, while simultaneously existing as a science experiment.
Going back to this with Source Code. The way it works is this:
Universe 1- Jake is in Dead. Jake is in Meat suit 1.
Universe 2- Jake is in meat suit 1. Jake is in Box. Dead in Universe 1
Universe 3- Jake is in meat suit 2. Jake is in Meat suit 1. Jake is in Box. Dead in Universe 1 and 2.
Universe 4- Jake is in Meat Suits 1, 2 and 3. Jake is in Box. Dead in 1, 2, 3.
See what I mean about it. Every time the timeline splits it resets so he’s back in the box while multiple versions of him are walking around. In theory, this means that he could end up with almost infinite splits- so he’s walking around in untold amounts of stolen people.
However, that’s based on how he behaved in the film. Given that he mutters some guff about fate when talking to Monaghan, it’s just as feasible that he stays in the box for each one, and we know that Wright can erase memories and just keep him on ice, because he can’t meet her again. Also, we don’t know the limitations of the source code- it may be constrained by nerve synapse patterns and whatnot.
Dicking with causality always has problems.
Doesn’t the universe split when he first enters the Source Code? So he’s killing the vegetable in the second universe only?
So, causality issues aside Jarv, did you like Source Code?
I think some of those odd loop ideas–and the meatsuit theory–made it better for me personally, left a few wrinkles to suss out.
I wasnt tripping over the morality of it, because Coulter intends to do the right thing. But hey this leaves it open for a buddy comedy sequel where Sean’s suppressed will starts fighting Coulter and there’s a crazy 80’s esque madcap dash to get Jake back to his body before Vera pulls the plug. Howie Mandel will play the voice of Sean.
It was alright. A bit of a step back after Moon to be honest, and a bit of a disappointment.
I didnt see it as a stepdown persay, as much as a step to the left. Moon though, was an impressive debut, and I agree that if SC had been his first movie and Moon his second, I wouldnt have been as hotly anticipating the second.
For me though, he proved he’s got a good handle on the scifi genre that goes beyond a one-hit wonder.
No, it’s nowhere near as accomplished as Moon, and I disagree. If I’d seen SC first, I’d have been thoroughly “blah” about it. There’s nothing there that elevates the material at all, and if anything it’s pedestrian.
It’s OK, don’t get me wrong, but it’s another meh film in the year of meh that was 2011.
Moon, on the other hand, was a really good film.
Think you read my post wrong. I said that if I had seen SC first and Moon second, I wouldnt have been anticipating Moon as much, which is to suggest that no, it isn’t as good. I guess I have a problem with they hyperbolic nature of ‘massive step-down’ because he demonstrates all the same skill, but he’s clearly tried to go and make a more mainstream thriller, that for me anyway, didn’t smack of dumbing down or anything.
I’d rather see him tackle something more challenging though.
It’s not hyperbolic at all. You use that term a lot when you’re not happy with something someone says. As I stated it’s a massive step back in content and purpose. I’d rather the director of Moon made more than a generic action movie. I actually don’t think it’s that smart. It has a veneer of intelligence, but the story itself is no more than a twist on Quantum Leap. And the movie fails with the important facet of distribution of information. As much as we like to debate it, the tech in the movie isn’t well developed. It’s either specifically vague, or it’s a failure on the part of the filmmakers. Either way, it’s unsatisfying.
as you often say, things are subjective. I see it as hyperbolic because I dont see it as a ‘massive’ step back. This down alot to how I view the careers of certain directors. It’s one thing to say it isn’t as satisfying, whereas I think of a massive step back as the director basically squandered their potential or demonstrated they want to go in the other direction.
I see Your Highness as a massive step-back for DGG. I see anything following Donnie Darko as a stepback–and ultimately a proof of blind luck–for Richard Kelly. I see Source Code as a minor film for Duncan Jones. But of course I would feel this way, as I did like the film a bit more than you too.
I just think ‘massive’ is the wrong term. It’s been used to establish a fall, and I dont think that’s the case.
You’re right. YH was a massive step back for DGG. What the hell is up with that guy? On the evidence of that Richard Kelly mess, the Donnie Darko Directors Cut and then The Box, Kelly barely had one film in him. And it’s a good film because someone chose to edit out all the shit.
SC is a massive step back because it’s really not very good, and doesn’t show any evidence that Duncan Jones will fulfill the potential he showed with Moon. Hopefully it’s just sophmore syndrome. The movie just seemed like a quickie. An inconsequential throwaway. Consider Neil Blomkamps next film. That sounds huge, and an expansion and development of what he showed with District 9.
I phrased it badly. I agree with you about not anticipating Moon.
It’s an enormous step back, because it feels as if he sleepwalked through it. There’s no spark, and I know what the problem with the final act is, and it’s a problem with the script.
By the time Coulter decides to go back for the last “hurrah”, they’ve already stopped the bomb. We know who the bomber is, we know where the bomb is, and we know why he’s done it. We also know that Coulter knows that there are multiple detonators on the train.
The last trip back is to satisfy the audience’s need for him to go off into the sunset with the girl. However, in terms of narrative, there’s nothing there. Where the tension should come from is in the race to keep him turned on for 8 minutes and not wipe his memory, but that’s gone because Vera basically just, er, locks the door. It’s the least thrilling ending to a thriller that I’ve ever seen, and as far as the story goes it is totally redundant. Even having this section in the film is an enormous mistake- this should be the climax to the movie, and it comes across as a damp squib.
No, I’d give it 2 Changs. It’s OK, but really, well, blah.
Also, the need for the romantic ending forces them to break their own rules regarding the tech. There’s absolutely no reason at all, according to the rules they set up, for him to be able to stay longer than the 8 minutes. In fact, they make it very clear that he can’t.
And then because Love must conquer all it contradicts itself? No, I’m not having that.
It’s a shame, actually, because if they’d managed to come up with an exciting last act- anything other than what they did come up with.
Although I have no problem with the meatsuit thing, or dicking with causality, the end of that film was so dramatically unsatisfying that it pulled the far superior first two thirds down. Don’t get me wrong, it’s OK, but it isn’t great.
They get around it because it’s “theorised” that you can’t stay longer than 8 minutes. Like I said, it’s vague. And it’s to suit the purposes of the screenplay.
And it’s not “love”, because she already has feelings for Sean, who is the person she see’s. It’s only now that he’s a nicer guy or a more interesting guy or whatever that it’s “love”. But it’s not love with Jake, it’s Sean. Jakes just made Sean more attractive to her, or shows an interest in her.
I know what you’re saying, I meant on his behalf. He talks a lot about “fate” and shit in that last third, and the implication is that she’s his true love and he’s only just found her. The fact that he got a massive head start because she thinks he’s Sean is neither here nor there.
Now I’m actually analysing it, that last third sucks balls badly.
I guess the thing is we usually always come down to nitpicking technical or itty-bitty details with these things–for me, I don’t care if the tech works or doesn’t, unless the film is shooting for hard science fiction, which is where I usually take issue. See Contact. There are no solid rules to the SC technology because it has to turn on the fact that it does more than its creators think it does–or are letting on that it does.
I don’t understand how half the tech in science fiction actually works, and in many films, it simply wouldn’t work at all.
Unless Im here bandying back and forth about it, the concept and set-up of Source Code, for me personally, works just fine as Im watching the movie.
I don’t think the last third works at all, and it isn’t tech issues.
It’s narrative. The story is concluded, it’s sheer desperation to shoe horn in that romantic ending that means we have that finale.
We know there’s no danger on the train, so therefore the impetus has to come from somewhere else, and it singularly doesn’t. If there was some race to get to him before she pulled the plug, for example. Instead we’ve got a cripple limping slowly to a locked door and then just staring at her, whereas inside the code we have a story playing exactly how we know it has to.
It’s 2/3 of a really good film, and 1/3 complete dud.
To me the ending doesn’t do that much damage, and I sort of like it…You are right, it’s a happy ending, but it also opened up the concept of the parallel worlds a bit more (to me anyway).
I like having that last dangling thread to think about. As I said before, Im not making excuses for the film, I just think we have differing views of it. I don’t see it as a bad film, more like an effective thriller and a reasonably exciting sci-fi film. Considering I saw it within a week of two others that didnt stick with me half as long: Limitless and Adjustment Bureau, I’m inclined to think of it as a success for the kind of film it was aiming for.
Regarding Blonkamp, that movie sounds awesome and huge. But as we have learned, going ridiculously big isn’t always the right follow-up. We will see. Not nearly enough good science fiction out there.
Also, I like to see directors continuously working, so if Jones did a glossy mainstream thriller to keep his juices flowing or fund another movie, then I’m cool with it. If four films later he’s still doing piddling action thrillers, then yes, SC might be viewed through a different lens.
I honestly don’t see how you can view a film that was treading water at best as anything other than a step back.
I genuinely preferred limitless. I did think the Adjustment Bureau was HONK (to quote wolf) though.
I have to say, Limitless was better. And I also liked Adj Bureau, although the tech in that movie was just as vague as in SC. But that movie firmly established itself as a romance from the outset. Not a third act romantic development. Limitless failed to capitalise on a decent first half and a really interesting idea, but overall it was better even if it did star a knobhead.
We has meant to be a nobhead though.
Bah.
Jar Jar typing:
HE WAS not We has.
Yes, he was. Which is why the casting wasn’t that much of a problem for me. It worked within the context of the movie. Much like the casting of To Die For worked.
Or should I say Yes, we has.
Meesa no likey keyboard.
Jarv Jarv Binks?
What’s honkingly bad is that I’m in the middle of a massive piece of CSS code, and because of that error, I think I’ve dropped something in the script.
Shit. It’s going to take me ages to find it as well.
Requiring a film establishes sound rules for it’s tech is hardly “nitpicking technical or itty-bitty details”. No, you don’t need to know how these things work. But it has to have the illusion of working, and a general understanding of how it works. Primer did that really well. Hell, BTTF just made up a flashing light and called it a funny name. The difference is, these things had rules. Source Code doesn’t.
The other difference is they both stuck to the rules they established. Source Code did not, by either, as you say, intentionally leaving it vague, or just plain ignoring it.
the last wrinkle isn’t a breaking of the rules of the script, as much as it is, establishing something the machine does that we didnt know it did. It’s a leap, but it’s not blatantly ignoring what they set-up.
It’s both dodgy and lazy.
Case in point 1) He gets her off the train early in the film. They pointedly look her up, and she’s dead- on the train. They can’t possibly be in the same timeline as the one where he got her off the train, because he’s significantly altered history- she would be listed as a survivor. Then, when the finale comes round, he alters the timeline by defusing the bomb in the train and goes for his joyride in the Sean meatsuit. He sends an email to Vera telling her everything. How? If he didn’t alter history in case 1, then how could he have in case 2? This isn’t nitpicking- they made such a point of it in the first instance and it flagrantly contradicts itself.
The film shatters its own internal logic because it requires the happy ending of the couple walking off into the sunset. It’s a massive, massive contradiction to what we’ve already seen.
The way round it, now I think about it, was to not limit the Source Code to 8 minutes in the first instance, and to explain that you can only go back to a time you’ve already successfully mapped.
In this case, they don’t have him killed by the car (which triggers an automatic recall). Rather, they have him pulled back by Vera who says “you were 20 minutes” or something like that. Then they say that whatshername survived because they got her off the train, but sadly, he’s got to go back, and she’s going to be there. He has a nice little existential crisis when he sees her, and this gives him added motivation for the final act.
Dramatically far more satisfying than what they came up with, and it took me two minutes.
And, as a twist on that idea, they’ve discovered that 8 minutes is the optimum time to stop the brain deteriorating in the present.
Have you read Transition, Jonah? That works on a very similar idea to Source Code.
No, is it any good?
See, I think I would have disliked your solution. Too clunky. To each their own.
Really good. Deals with multiple dimensions and meat suit carjacking. And that solution I gave is less clunky than the one they came up with
Will check it out.
But the thing we are nitpicking is a final revelation that no one could have known about–because no one had done it before, and who knows really what happened to those who are shut off in The Beleagured Castle. From the perspective of Wright and Farmiga it was pretty much business as usual, except in that other universe.
It’s dodgy, but not lazy. There’s a big jump there–that the SC allows him to change the course of events, but if you can eat that one, then second one follows a certain sense of the same logic.
It’s a massive step back. Opinions about the actual film aside, Source Code was slight and a step back in content and purpose. Moon felt like it was made by someone exciting. SC felt like it could’ve been made by anyone.
Exactly. I’d forgotten who made it, and looked it up expecting it to be someone like Ron Howard. I was surprised to see who did it.
I thought the ending was Capra time but still liked this movie, saw it last April. Kinda works.
And what one is this? Forgive my obtuseness early on.
Expendables 2. The film that gathers together all the iconic 80’s and 90’s stars of R-rated action movies and makes a… PG-13 action movie.
Hehehehehe
When you put it like that. Sly said it will be one for the ages though.
From the director of The Mechanic and When a Stranger Calls. Yes, a fail for the ages.
I thought Sly was directing it.
Nope. Simon West.
Surprised at that. He can direct, and does so quite well for the most part.
Ebert reviewed Norwegian Wood if you’re interested. Haven’t read it myself.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120118/REVIEWS/120119989
He’s fundamentally misunderstood it. That’s a shockingly point-missing review.
I’ve been seeing stuff.
Drive. A very cool film. Incredibly well shot and acted, but a little souless in places. And you cant broadside a car with another car head on, and not even break the headlights!
Immortals. Pretty cool looking. Supermans should be in good hands as Henry was a good lead. The Gods were a bit weird. But classic OTT Tarsim.
BBC Sherlock. Best thing on TV!
Decided to give American Horror Story. Weird, but compelling. No wonder Jesica Lange won a GG for it, she is amazing, and totally batshit in it. Bold and original. I guess I will see this to the season end. Anything that has nu Spok as a gay ghost is all right by me.
Er, say what? That sounds bizarre.
haha absolutely. The whole show is full of various ghosts who have been murdered in the house that Dylan McDermott has moved his family in.
Two of the ghosts are a permanently arguing gay couple, who were the last people to be murdered in the house.
Its a good show. A lot of jet black humour, and a genuinely creepy atmosphere. I have no fucking idea whats going on.
But Jessica Lange as a mad, bad Southern lady with secrets FTW!
There is also a maid, who the husband sees as a vixen whos in suspenders and is for ever fingering herself when he’s looking. The wife see’s the same character as an ugly, 60ish lady with a glass eye.
Enjoyably fucked up!
What the hell?
I have to watch this.
I liked Faster a lot…better than the Fast and The Furious, if the truth be told.
The Rock is much better…character fits him to a ‘T’.
I’d say Faster is better than F&F 1-4. But not 5.
Drive blows. I like Sherlock. Not seen the others.
Is it really that bad? It was being talked up as one of the films of the year.
I hated it. Probably the most overrated film of 2011. That or Bridesmaids. No, Drive.
Wow. I quite like those sort of films, so I was quite looking forward to it.
Drive is not a bad film at all! I saw the various heated debates from everyone. It is a very stylish film. Very noir. And the opening is an excellent bit of film making.
You would enjoy it, certainly on some levels. Possibly a little style over substance, but its a great cast, and it looks good. And has a killer retro 80;s electronic score.
I enjoyed it, but I dont think it was the best thing ever.
I like The Driver, and it sounds a bit like that.
Drive is an empty, lifeless excercise in self-adoration and masterbation. It mistakes silence for meaning. It features good actors but doesn’t feature good performances. The motivations for all the characters aren’t thought through, except as a matter of convenience for the underdeveloped screenplay. It’s overly stylised without clear purpose. And it repeats the same fucking pop song over and over and over and over and over.
No, Drive blows.
It’s also a rip off of Thief and, from the sounds of Jarvs review, The Driver.
The Driver is a rip off of a french film. Le Samurai, I think it’s called. I’ve forgotten.
Well, it’s a rip off of a rip off. But it’s wholly unoriginal, and wholly uninteresting is all I’m saying.
If you want to watch a good, recently made car movie, watch Faster. Basically a similar thing, the homage to the 70’s car movies, with the strong, silent lead, but a hell of a lot better, more entertaining, better direction, and some actual character development. If not for the crappy “killer” subplot it would’ve been awesome.
I liked The Driver.
I need to watch that. It’s been on my ps3 for months.
You may like Drive then. I concur with Col, it’s a decent retro-homage movie to those 70’s thrillers. I thought of Le Samourai while watching it, and to a lesser extent Driver.
Drive is like House of the Devil for that particularly genre and type of film–not comparing in impact or effect, but in what it’s doing–it’s trying to be a modern exploration of a very specific style of movie.
It does tend to divide people, but K and Droid both hate the shit out of it, and there’s surprising amount of people who thought it was the best thing released last year. I’m in the middle–it’s good fun, I’ve watched it twice, but it’s got no real substance to it.
For me though, I could say the same thing of Fast Five and Faster, both of which I enjoyed. Faster is almost the best of the bunch if it were to just jettison useless hitman and his girlfriend from the story.
Nah, Fast Five is a lot better than Faster and shits all over Drive. There’s 10 times as much character development stuffed into the cracks of Fast Five than there is in the whole plodding length of Drive. And anyway, Fast Five and Faster aren’t pretending to be anything other than cool, fun movies. Drive is so far up it’s own ass it can see the cavity on its back right molar.
I liked Faster more than Fast and Furious.
The character in Faster fit the Rock like a ‘T’.
I like Faster a bit more than Fast 5. Biggest flaw in Faster was Hitman, and in Fast 5 was Walker, who I don’t like at all.
I agree. I dont see Fast Five as being all that great. It’s a fun action movie and it’s golden compared to the other movies in the series as far as Im concerned, but it didnt have same character interest that Faster held.
Eh, watched Brokedown Palace last night, never seen it. Claire Danes is annoying as fuck in it and in no way did I give a shit about her character’s situation. Bill Pullman really sucks as an actor. Kate Beckinsale plays the other stupid American thrown into a correctional facilty in Thailand after being framed for being drug mules. It’s all a really blah movie.
Yeah, that movie’s a bit shit. Beckinsale in that movie looks exactly like an ex of mine. Pity she was a bit of a fruitloop.
There’s another one, called Return to Paradise (or something) with Vince Vaughn and Joaquin Phoenix that’s a bit more interesting.
I think it’s utter shit, and it’s because of how unlikeable the girls are.
I haven’t seen it since it first came out. You’re probably right. I barely remember it.
Have you seen the other one I mentioned? That’s a bit more interesting, because it comes down to a moral choice by Vaughn. Phoenix is in jail, but they’re both responsible. Phoenix has like a 20 year sentence or something, but if Vaughn returns they share the sentence. I found that more interesting than the Danes one.
I think I’ve seen that. Can’t remember it.
It’s not bad. The most interesting aspect is probably the “what would I do?” moral choice it poses.
All I can remember is thinking Vaughan is a cock. That’s about par for the course, though.
Well, he’s meant to be because he’s the free man. And Vaughn is no slouch at portraying a cock on screen.
I’ve never seen Return to Paradise, though I do sort of remember it when it came out.
Yeah, you couldn’t sympathize with the girls. At all.
Jarv, I’m just going to put in for the cheapest tix I can for the cricket alright? They’re £30 each. Going for the saturday of both tests.
Cool. Done.
Wait a sec. The Windies is £30. The SA test cheapest ticket is £50. It’s in August. Is that too much?
When is it in August again?
Actually, the August one I’ve got holiday that I can arrange round it. If that makes any difference.
Sat 18th. Near your b’day. A b’day piss up.
Also it’s £40 not £50.
Friday is £50 if you wanted to take the friday off.
I’d rather it be friday or saturday as I need at least one day to recover.
Saturday then
Huzzah!
I love piss ups.
Right, submitted my ballot for…
England vs West Indies Day 3 – 19/05/2012, 19 May 2012 – 2 tickets at £30 each.
England vs South Africa Day 3 – 18/08/2012, 18 Aug 2012 – 2 tickets at £40 each.
Cool.
Fingers crossed and whatnot.
The Stand is being directed by Ben Affleck? hmmm…
Meh. I hope they do something about the end of that book.
They’re also adapting IT as well. Stephen King gotta eat.
Oh, goody.
Jesus fucking christ. It’s not as if he hasn’t written a shit load of unadapted books and stories. No, best go back to the well.
It was always unsatisfying as a book and a film, because of his Power of mind or whatever it was towards the end.
And really, Tim Curry was fucking terrifying. Can’t imagine anyone topping that.
The rest of it was woeful though. Particularly the giant spider thing.
Still, at least it wasn’t killed by the power of love, which king was really bad for during that period.
Or a magic retard.
ah yes, Dreamcatcher, which was worse in the movie because he inexplicably turns out to be an alien? Wha?
The giant spider is ridiculous, but if you follow the book, there’s a giant talking turtle too that speaks like it’s Hank Hill. Awful. The problem with King is that he’s trying to tie everything into Midworld or whatever that universe the Dark Tower takes place in is. Even with It, he’s getting at the idea all of the monsters in our world are something else more sinister from this other world entirely. So, it can’t just be a demon hiding as a clown, it’s got to be some spider-beast minion of the Crimson King or some nonsense.
Curry is the ONLY good thing about the IT adaptation. Book is incredible (except for the last few pages, but it’s worth the rest of it). So I’d like to see a good adaptation of that. Same with The STand. The miniseries although bad, is the best Mick Garris has ever done, but still it hasn’t held up well at all except some of the performances. But I agree that there are a lot of great SK books that haven’t been adapted yet
the thing with It, is although the point of the story is their coming back together in adulthood, it would probably be mostly amazing if they were just a wrap-around story with the kid’s tale being the meat of the movie.
The Stand needs a good adaptation, and don’t change the ending but find a better way to close the section in Las Vegas–don’t change the intimation, but change the visual way it happens..otherwise, it’s just straight-up dumb..
For me, the best King movies are the one’s less fantastical. Misery is my favourite, along with Stand By Me, Carrie and Shawshank. Also like The Shining.
Of his more fantastical one’s, The Mist would be the winner.
he’s got a really good short story taking place in the world of Romero-esque zombies–it was written in the 80s–called Home Delivery, and it would have made for a very creepy movie in light of the current dead obsession. I think though, it would just seem played out now.
The last King book I read was Rose Madder. That book was so utterly shithouse that it’s put me off him. I’ve never read The Stand. I may check that out one day. It’s a long friggin book though.
that was the one with the woman on the run from an abusive husband who finds she has an evil twin in this other world, that teaches her about girl power or something?
Awful. Still, on his worst day he’s not Dean Koontz.
I guess the other ‘big’ name in horror in the 80s and 90s was Clive Barker, who I guess is technically more dark fantasy than anything.
The same is mostly true of him thats true of King. When he’s on, he’s great. When not, he’s kind of terrible. See Testament. Barker I think is actually at his best when he’s doing young adult fiction like Abarat Or the Thief of Always. I think this is because he’s got to cut the psychosexual weirdness which usually guts his books, and he’s got to keep the story moving along at a good clip.
his new one is really good as well, the one about JFK, also minimally fantastical. I enjoyed Hearts in Atlantis and Delores Claiborne to an extent, although neither are classics. I enjoyed Green Mile as well, although that one has some clunky moments.
Green Mile and Dolores Claiborne were okay. Didn’t like Hearts in Atlantis. Don’t know about the new one.
I dont think it’s a well-loved book, but From A Buick 8 could be a really creepy little movie if handled correctly.
I think King gets poorly malaigned for his new work, which a lot of it is still great. Same with his newer shorts which have been really good. Full Dark, No Stars has some really great stories in it. I think people are extremely unfair to his endings as well. Yes, some of them aren’t the greatest in the world, but almost 99% the story leading up to the ending is fantastic, I’m of the school of thought that if I enjoyed the ride up to the end it is a sucess for me.
I really like the film version of Dolores Claiborne, I thought it was really good for a non-fantastic SK story.
Jonah is right- Home Delivery is a great short.
I’d love to see a full length version of The 10 ‘o Clock People
Anybody else think King has a bit of pedo in him because of IT? I mean he had a group of 12 or 13 year old boys run a train on a12 year old girl to “seal” the pact of silence? That’s a bit let’s call it odd.
I disagree with the pedo thing as a personal trait Xi, but I definitely think ANYTHING else would have been better than that idea
wait, what happens? I dont think I recall this part. I read it in the verry early 90s.
Jonah- they meet the ‘almost’ true form of IT ‘the deadlights’ and to stop it they have to show love because it’s the only thing that can conquer IT, or at least drive it back. And they do that by having the girl, um yeah, with all the boys.
At least that’s what I can remember
Jonah at the end of IT, after the kids defeat the spider monster, by using the awesome magical power of friendship, in order to make them forget the horror of what happened all the boys ran a train on the girl. The reason for this was twofold first it gave her something to do. All the boys had something they brought to the table to help defeat Pennywise except her, she was just there mostly in the book as far as I remember, until she used herself to help them”forget”. The other thing King did with her was write some goofy shit about the power of the sacred feminine or something and the power or a mothers love even in a pubescent child.
It was really icky the whole thing and it made me realize that women for the most part are not treated that well in Kings books and stories. He has some women issues.
Oh yeah the other thing the train did was help seal their mystical bond, even they all stopped being friends after the train and its what brought them all back as adults.
ewww. I recall now. I have forgotten much of that book. Im not sure if its that he has women issues, or that he’s trying to reach for something that he’s not very comfortable with. Like you said, there’s a lot of mystical earth mother girl power nurturing crap going on his books, but he rarely knows how to sell it without sexuality, and usually that sexuality manifests itself in creepy ways–not ones that necessarily suggest King himself is a creeper, but that he’s writing out of his league, trying to channel some nonsense he doesn’t quite understand himself.
I can see the point for victimization, but he victimizes all of his characters in similar ways. If anything, it maybe that he’s too whitebread and when he really tries to go dark or different, he can’t quite manage it.
Im not trying to defend him from anything in particular, but his writing taken as a whole I dont get the feeling he has some kind ofg deep-seated female issues, just that he’s often trying to wade into areas that usually only feminist novelists go for, and it would be better if he steered clear. That scene in It is probably the creepiest example, but Gerald’s Game, elements of Suzannah’s quest in Dark Tower, and pretty much the whole damn book of Rose Madder spring to mind as examples of what you are talking about.
Now, if we are talking Jack Ketchum, who writes mean-spirited filth disguised as righteous outrage, yea, he’s got an issue with women.
probably another reasonable explanation for most of It; the drugs. I think that was somewhere around the height of the Stephen King drug binge. There’s no other way to explain the scene where they can’t find the great Turtle in the deadlights because he choked to death on some puked-up galaxies.
I imagine King getting a check in the mail one day and a published copy of It and thinking ‘When the eff did I write this?’
I think you can make an argument that King has some sort of issues with females, look at how they are portrayed in may books. In The Stand they are either earth mothers, sluts or passive victims that can’t do anything but sacrifice themselves. Carrie and especially Carries mom. In the book Carrie is a passive victim that gets high off her power and has a religious zealot repressed mom(religion is another issue he has) The religious zealot from the mist and the sort of victimish chick that becomes a quasi mother. The nut job from Misery, the mother from Pet Sematary, the fucked up sister in Tommyknockers. There are others that i can’t remember but you see where I’m going with this right?
I see what you are saying. I guess it depends on what you mean by issues. I’ve heard it aimed at many horror writers and filmmakers—many point to David Lynch, and there they probably have a point—that they have women issues. I think this is usually because bad things are usually constantly happening to women in those novels. With King though, I still think it’s down to the fact he probably knows a handful of women very well, and draws the rest he writes from the existing literary ether.
So, what he reverts to when writing are archetypes—the earth mother, the dread witch, the manipulative slut or the hooker with a heart of gold, the sacrificial lamb—none of those were created by King, and in most instances he’s just lifting them from other sources. You could make some of the same claims against the men in his novels, although they usually have a greater degree of nuance to them.
Women in his books are very rarely however, only victims, but when he goes to give them strength it’s usually in ways that relate to a somewhat puritanical view of women—they are shepherds, saviors, mothers, etc.
I think King’s treatment of women speaks to more what the genre of horror in general thinks of them, because I think—particularly when he started writing—King was mostly drawing from types in the genre and giving them life. Hell, I think he’s probably still mostly doing that.
The characters he probably gets the most right are wives, mothers, etc, which leads me to theorize—perhaps wrongly—that he may only really know well a handful of women, most of those from his own family.
There is probably a hell of an article though to be written about what you pointed out here, and if you scanned across horror fiction at large I bet it would be fascinating.
I’ll give you the religious issue, and it’s strange because it’s very much a struggle isn’t it as portrayed in his works–religion itself is usually dubious and often leads to zealotry. but religious faith can be seen as very positive when channeled by characters who believe in the ‘right God’.
That God in the King universe seems to be a version of the Christian heritage with some new age flourishes layered on.
Which brings up something else–there’s something very Biblical in tone and event in some of those novels, particularly The Stand–and look at the women there; all fall along the divide you mentioned.
Issues might not be the right word it does have a negative connotation but its the best i could come with after being up for nearly 20 hours. maybe it would be better to use the term “curious view of women” instead.
I agree that Kings time growing up had a lot to do with his view of women. His formative years were the June cleaver time then the 60’s hit and the view of women change and teh earth mother BS started then the sexual maturing of the 70’s added another layer to his view of women, trampy and easy.
Let;s be honest though King is a weird looking strange dude and I bet he was not a big hit with the womens so he taking his high school rejections out in his books.
Xi’s right. That is fucking horrid.
And worse, is that she sits there waiting for them to take turns on her, and the whole thing is written as in “they came to her”. It’s dubious.
However, she does have a use. She’s the best shot with the silver dollars. Which makes that scene even worse, because it is so unnecessary.
Mind you It is also the book with the like “kind of kinky, like your father’s pubic hair” in it, which is just fucking repellent.
I lean towards massive drugs intake, because the Tommyknockers also features Bobby throttling a guy with her translucent vagina (Paging Dr. Freud) and almost everything of that time that he wrote was bloated, seriously full of crap and whatnot.
The reason Xi is right is because of Gerald’s Game which is practically an ode to molestation and sado-masochism. And he was off coke when he wrote that.
And now…
Xi is wrong about Women issues. King cannot write characters, he really can’t. What each book does, and It is a great example is assemble a group of characters roughly defined by their job- so you’ve got a architect, writer, etc etc etc.
He’s been doing this all the way back to Salem’s lot. He writes to a formula, and he’s done it in practically every book since.
Women in King books just fit into the already defined archetype- for example, in Tommyknockers Bobby is a writer, in It Julia is a Doctor. This is why his later books are shit. You wait to see them, and one best have religious connotations.
Not to mention the presence of the magic negro in The Shining.
then we agree…that’s all the same stuff I cited.
Never read The Black House. Stopped reading King regularly about 15 years ago.
eh, read my comments. Im agreeing with Xi about the content being horrid, and I also cited Gerald’s Game, but look at when Gerald’s Game was written– mid 90s, which was psychosexual-palooza and every writer who thought they were worth something took a stab at it. And I suspect the less you knew about any of it, the worst it came off, because you were posing. Gerald’s Game is a poser novel if there ever was one.
I dont think one can look at that book and say ‘King is a misogynist’ or ‘hates women’.
I think he just doesn’t always know what to do with them, and he’s really bad at the whole sexual horror thing so should probably just drop it.
He’s crap at sexual horror, and sex in general. He also isn’t great about body horror as a rule.
I really don’t think he is misogynist, I just think character work isn’t his strong point.
he’s good at fleshing out archetypes and making them seem substantial, but that’s not the same as writing a good, believable, stand alone character. Im struggling to think of a single truly great character that wasn’t the villain, as I think that Anne Wilkes, Pennywise (not the spider), and Jack Torrance–both protagonist and antagonist according to the book–are great ‘bad guys’.
No. He isn’t. The same characters turn up in almost all his books. He physically cannot flesh them out. For example, the writer in Salem’s Lot is the exact same character as the Writer in Desperation.
What he’s great at is placing his archetypes in terrifying situations.
I feel bad about picking on Salem’s Lot like this, because it’s one of his best. In many ways It is the essential King book, because I think, although I stand to be corrected, that it is the one that contains all of his “go to” characters.
No, because that suggests that characters like Calahan the priest wouldnt be interesting in a different book. I thinkk they would. It’s not every archetype he gets right, but Im thinking more archetypical and less just ‘profession’. Calahan is a priest but he’s also the old man who battles evil. And what I mean is that he can make that archetype feel like a person–even if its just lifted from another novel–for at least a little while.
magical negro he’s inflicted on us numerous times. Green Mile. It took me halfway through the first segment before I realized Ten Brautigan in Hearts in Atlantis wasn’t black.
It’s not a one off.
A lot of them feel like he sat there with a check list:
Need Monster- OK, spores from outer space.
Characters: the writer, obviously, Dr. or some other professional,
Isolated Location: Have I beaten the shit out of arse end of maine yet?
See what I mean?
I know what you mean…I never disagreed on it. I just mean that for a general mass audience, he can make that archetype ‘seem’ for a time like a character. Long enough usually to get through the novel. His writer or doctor might be generic but most of the time there’s enough of something interesting in there that it’s not completely flat.
I do compare it to Koontz who cant even gussy up an archetype. He will stress a character’s occupation until it’s ludicrous. I remember one of them might as well read ‘the antiquarian turned with a start, the antiquarian fought with the dark angel, the antiquarian settled down for a good post-meal crap.
Comparing him to Koontz is a tad unfair. Koontz is fucking dreadful.
The thing is, I’m bitching about this having read nearly all of them up to Black House, most haven’t.
I only compared him because Koontz is inexplicably the other horror author that gets mentioned among the unwashed masses. Barker sometimes, but he’s off doing other odd things and doesn’t get brought up as much these days.
I remember a Robot Chicken ep once where Koontz moved in next door to King, and kept trying to hang out with him. Koontz says it’s the difference between transportation on the bus and driving your own car ‘sure mine’s dirty, cheap and you feel sick afterwards, but it gets you to the same place in the end.’ After running Koontz down with Christine, a policeman on the scene says ‘Mr. King you have killed one of America’s….authors.’
Koontz is so fucking talentless. Try James Herbert.
After reading one, you need to wash your brain with bleach, but he’s a much better author than Koontz.
The Rats is genuinely a good book.
And who’s that pervert that wrote about the tourist house with the monster with two cocks or whatever it was. May have been called The Cellar.
ewww. I dont really read modern horror authors. I know almost nothing of whats out there.
I picked up some Jack Ketchum a few years ago, and was mad enough to kick a puppy–no, that’s not right, mad enough to kick Jack Ketchum–and have mostly sworn off horror.
Like you said, too much out there that’s just like staring into an abyss of human depravity.
WTH is that? The Cellar? Sounds awful.
richard laymon..read the synopsis. feel sick now. WTF is wrong with people.
Shit book. Borderline porn for lots of it. Apparently it’s a whole series.
Foul. Worse than anything King’s ever written.
I’m not joking about the two cocks thing.
King, with the exceptions we have mentioned, is far more mild than most horror authors.
Clive Barker is another one for weirdness that gets out of hand.
There was some suspiciously paedophelic sequences in several of his books, but he’s another one who seems so far from shore most times it’s hard to know what the hell is really going on in there.
Damnit. who is a good horror author currently writing, who is also writing horror?
Dunno. I’ve stopped reading horror authors.
Hee hee.
The wikipedia Cellar Synopsis makes it sound really good and non-pervy as well.
Black House is an unspeakably bad book. It would just be a shit book, however the presence of the mystic home brewing bikers consigns it to pure hatefulness.
It’s also supremely dodgy and contains lots of his favourite motifs: Blind man with different voices, power of love, and the bit where Hollywood Jack slaps fuck out of a child is beyond suspicious.
so what’s the suspcious thing? are we really suggesting king’s a paedo? Cuz I don’t see it.
Chalk Gerald’s Game up to the Oprahzination of ‘serious topics’ and so King has to go write a book about molestation and it’s effects, but because he knows eff all about it, he keeps going back to grand guignol tricks, which backfire monstrously. Bad writing, poorly concieved, not paedo in the least.
It seems like King trying to imagine his own adolescent sexuality, mixed with extremely dodgy mysticism and coming up with something inexcusable, but I dont think he had a clue of how it came off until much later–if then.
He can’t imagine adolescent sexuality because he’s a fucking dork.
Seriously. He should just leave it alone.
Black House is about a paedo, ffs. Sort of.
HAving been rude about King, an essay I really, really enjoyed was his Little League account. That was a great piece of writing. I know nothing about Little League, and reading that made me want to be there watching my kid bat out the 7th. And I couldn’t give a fuck about baseball.
A superb, evocative, brilliant piece of writing.
that’s best thing he’s ever written. On Writing, incidentally, is his best book IMO.
He’s a funny one. Writing almost seems to be his 9 to 5, because he’s certainly written his share of half arsed crap.
also, you have a hit on something I mentioned earlier…odd for a horror writer, but in his actual prose he’s much better the closer something is to his experience, which is why I think his women thing is down to knowing only a few ‘types’ of women, and the ones he’s probably closest to are not very like much of the women who end up in his books.
It’s the set-up he’s dynamite at–and give him credit for really putting a fire under the genre–I think he helped expand the versatility and variety of it.
Completely agree. He’s shit at character, has very strange ideas, but there is nobody better at a set up.
Cujo, by all rights, shouldn’t even work, but it does. Same goes for Christine. I do like King but he’s become awfully bloated over the years, to the point where I sort of feel embarrassed when reading some of his books–although nearly all of them–Gerald’s Game and Rose Madder being exceptions–have something great in them.
Isn’t the Talisman series written with Peter Straub? Now there’s a horror author I couldnt give a crap about.
Do you like Barker, Jarv?
and because it can never be said enough, Dean Koontz sucks ass.
Dean “plagiarist” Koontz sucks balls something fierce.
King splits into periods- there’s the 70’s and early 80’s which contain the majority of his best books.
The rest of the 80’s, which is mostly crap with the odd piece of genius in it.
The 90’s. Which is best forgotten.
And so forth
I’m also still cross about The Dark Tower.
he totally Lucased the last few Dark Tower books. not in that he actually revised things, but just ran them down into the gutter with hack writing, pompous, self-serving tripe, and a complete lack of respect for the villains.
Tell you what is an unforgivably shit book:
Rose Madder.
I actually resented him for that.
that’s his worst attempt at writing ‘women’s issues’ into a novel. If it werent for Gerald’s Game, it would be his worst book–remember I havent read Black House os don’t know either way.
His worst book is The Dark Tower.
That is fucking awful. And obnoxious.
The Dark Tower would be a bad book, if he hadn’t stopped it with the “Constant Reader” stuff.
Fuck you. Don’t patronise me for reading all 7 of these novels (which, by the way, have been shit since about half way through book 4).
Man, it still pisses me off, even thinking about it.
whats really unconsciounable is how he goes to great pains to set Flagg and the Crimson King up as the centerpieces of evil in every one of his fictional universes, and then takes them out like second-rate thugs in a Seagal movie…
Yea, Dark Tower is the worst. I’ll give you that, because it actively destroys something once great.
Beat me to it. That’s why Dark Tower is his worst book. Honestly, it’s Star Wars prequel bad.
Right. Off to watch Masterchef.
Will pop back in in a bit.
How did you miss Black House? Just out of curiosity?
Because I dont like Straub at all, found The Talisman tedious, and when it came out I was possibly going through a ‘serious’ books phase and missed it, and when it came to my attention again, I had heard zero positive buzz.
It’s almost worth reading because it’s so fucking awful.
did you like the talisman? its a sequel right?
No, not particularly. It is the sequel, but I read it because it’s tied heavily into the Dark Tower Mythology.
I’ve read nearly all of them. I think some of his e-books slipped past me, but Under the Dome and 11 22 63 I both read and enjoyed. The latter more than the former.
The Dark Tower as in the whole thing, or the last book?
I loved the first three, thought four was decent but sort of meh, and from Wolves of the Calla on it was like watching someone slowly kill family members until nothing was left.
The first three Dark Tower Books were good. The third one though was starting to go a bit wrong.
The fourth one was half good.
Wolves of the Calla and all the Sneetch nonsense made me want to punch him. An unforgivably bad book, that shat all over Salem’s Lot.
Song of Susannah was even worse.
The Dark Tower itself was abysmal. Fucking grenades and shit? Fuck you. Then the lecture, and as for the actual fucking end itself? How did nobody tell him it was a terrible idea?
right, Im saying there’s a difference in writing about a paedo and being one. Incidentally, paedos are also a very old horror archetype. Hell, didn’t that pied piper dude walk a whole town’s worth of kids away as payment, beguiling them with his, ahem, flute…
“Suspicious” as in tasteless and fundamentally wrong. Also it’s totally gratuitous.
I don’t think he’s a paedo. I think he’s got a few issues, and I also think he’s lost his mojo so is stretching ideas he had a long time ago beyond their reasonable breaking point.
I agree with you about the stand alone monsters. I’ll take Annie Wilkes, Pennywise, Carrie’s Mom and a few others as fucking magnificent. He’s really good at them.
hehehe…ok, we agree on that. Did you ever read, Rage was it?
That thing felt like he banged it out right after a particularly bad flashback to senior year. Holy schnikes.
I’ve only ‘met’ King once, and it was at a book talk/signing and I can’t profess to know the man. He seems more normal than he looks, but there’s a touch of oddness there, although I couldn’t tell if that was particular to him or New England in general. Again, I don’t expect he’s going to confess to buried hookers in the middle of a megastore who asked him to come pimp the latest ‘churned out as fast I could type it’ novel.
Again, his new one though is possibly the best thing he’s written in decades. God I hope he doesnt follow it up with that threatened Shining sequel.
After Black House he can fuck himself as far as I’m concerned. Worst Book I’ve read in decades and in my top 6 hated books of all time.
Well for what its worth, as I said before, my uncle was in college w Stephen King, and he remembered him in the drama club. He was clearly a born story teller, but swore like a sailor. My uncle said too that they all figgered King would make it as a writer if he wasn’t put in jail first.
Was watching tv earlier and jonafon woth was interviewing Emma Thompson and she dropped this nugget of news.
Annie
Written by Emma Thompson..
Music by Jay-Z.
Starring Will Smiths Daughter.
Reviewed by Jarv.
Last day of work before I spend a week falling down the French Alps. And I’ve got my annual performance review. Whoop-de-fucking-doo.
Good luck. Those things blow.
Yep. But I’m passed the point of caring. I’m going to knuckle down and start jobhunting when I get back. 2012. The year of the new job.
For us all. My director needs to stop this crap and either offer me this regional manager job or I’m out of here as well.
I’ve got to the point where I honestly don’t care if I get a positive review or a negative one. Need a new job.
More importantly, did you see my post last night?
I chose to ignore it.
I hate Annie with a vengeance. The only interesting thing about this is that Jay-Z already sampled the Annie Soundtrack for Hard Knocks Life, so I’m not surprised he’ll do the music.
I do wish Will Smith would stop foisting his heinous offspring on the world
I know you chose to ignore it. That’s why I insisted you address it. I’ve looked into my crystal ball and foresee a review of R&B Annie in your future.
No chance. None.
Never say never. I wouldn’t have put two cents on you reviewing NYE a month before it came out, and look what happened?
Bad news on the AvWotM casting front. Elsa Pataky is up the duff courtesy of Thor.
She was in Snakes on a Plane?
Got her tits out when getting shagged in the toilet.
Yes, the word you’re looking for is shameless.
She’s gone all classy and shit now. It’s very hard to reconcile with the woman that bit the mad doctor’s cock off in Beyond Re-Animator, and used to shed her top at the slightest provocation.
That was her? I seem to remember it being a blonde chick. But I’ve forgotten nearly all that movie. Apart from, weirdly, a shot of a guy on a dirtbike. Am I making that up?
No you aren’t.
And she is naturally blonde. Apparently. Mrs. Jarv doesn’t think so. Although I seem to remember her being an airplane blonde in Beyond Re-Animator (After it goes down, you can see a black box, hehehehehe).
Oh dear. Hang your head in shame.
After all this Snakes on a Plane talk recently, I’m beginning to feel the masochistic need to watch it again. And since I’ve almost totally forgotten it, it would be like being totally underwhelmed all over again!
you could just watch snakes on a train and be all kinds of new underwhelmed. That one if I remember has the train going into a tunnel that it realizes too late is a giant snake.
See, that sounds great.
It won’t be, because that’s Asylum as I remember.
I’m waiting until they make Snakes on a Crane.
Christ, She was in Giallo as well. She was definitely blonde in that.
Man, that film sucked balls. Brody was fucking awful, and had to wear a prosthetic snozz over his real one.
I’ve got the wrong one. She wasn’t chick shagged in toilet. Although, she was someone that’s gone on to something else as well. Elsa was chick with infant son in SoaP.
Talking about which, I watched a crappy Amber Heard movie the other day with Karl Urban and some real piece of filth that could be in line for a part. Let me find what she’s called and an image.
Odette Annable
I emsmalled it for you. I’d rather not have someone look at my screen to see a massive pic of a chick in a bikini.
Ta, I was already doing that, but forgot the tag for a moment.
It was just a bit of a shock is all. I refresh and all of a sudden the screen is filled with boobs.
Sorry about that. My work computer is up the shitter. I put it up, and was then going in to edit it, but it takes fucking yonks for the edit bit to open now.
It’s Odette Yustman or someshit isn’t it? She was in that shithouse horror movie… The Unborn.
Dunno. Imdb had her down as Annable in that shit that I watched with your favourite lesbo.
She took her top off in that, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odette_Yustman
She was in a film called “Group Sex”?????
No nudity in that movie I don’t think. I would’ve rememebered because otherwise it was boring.
Redundant. Like Kathy Bates in a sumo suit.
Right, off to this review. See you in a bit.
Good luck
Review done. Probably the most positive one so far. Still no promotion though. This joint really does blow. No wonder their employee retention is terrible. It’s new job search time.
Pay rise?
I’ve just wasted all morning writing dismal web copy that I know is going to get rewritten by that human erection who masquerades as my line manager.
Not that there’s anything wrong with it, but he’ll do it because he can’t help himself.
Pay rise isn’t discussed in that meeting. It’s a yearly thing done separately. It will be nominal though. Seriously, time to get the hell outta dodge. BAH!
Yup.
For one and all. I’m still sulking at not getting the MCC job. That would have been great.
good on the positive review, sucks about the no promotion though. Hope you have luck with the job search.
This was a productive way to spend a day:
He told me that the page of copy I’d lovingly crafted was too much and he wanted it down to straplines.
I did, and reduced the summary of the whole place to two sentences. Still too long apparently, so he’s rewritten it in one.
There goes all my lovely SEO. We may as well not fucking bother with this- seriously.
If he wanted it in one line, why didn’t he say he wanted it in one line?
There’s so many rude answers to that, I presume you mean other than the obvious. It’s because he wanted it to roughly fit into the space. There’s far more room than one line.
And he’s wrong anyway. It’s for a fucking landing page on a website- you know, the bit google looks at that you have to stuff full of SEO’d text.
It’s really annoyed me actually.
1 hour 40 minutes to go. Christ the days go extra slow when you really, really, really, really don’t want to be at work.
are you off on your trip after this?
Yeah, I’m off early AM tomorrow. Gotta pack and stuff tonight.
That’s every working day.
Where is everyone? I saw DocP resurfaced at Gingertown in that stupid SOPA page.
why did he decide to shun WOTM again? I remember he actually announced that at one point, but I never knew why.
He did? I thought he just came and went as the mood took him. Seemed to surface every few months then disappear again.
Indeed. No idea where everyone is. Koutch has probably fallen down the back of the couch.
Dunno. He shut down all internet activity. I think he lurks around.
I’ll post a rude review about one of his favourites and draw him out.
That does work. It’s funny, yesterday, as soon as I mentioned Stephen King, and we started discussing him, I knew kloipy would surface. And within an hour, there he was. Like a moth to the flame.
1 hour 6 minutes from first mention.
have fun on your trip, man. dont end up stranded with wolves you are forced to punch.
If I get stranded on a chair lift, I won’t a) try to pop and drop right from the seat, b) wait for hours until I’m too frozen to function properly, and c) be a complete dick.
I’ve forgotten how she gets down now.
I think she drops. She just doesn’t break her leg.
There were so many ways they could get low enough to drop safely. At least safer.
it’s like using the words ‘a good version of Salt’ or mentioning how much Source Code sucked around me.
I remember him referring to it when he popped back up to debate with Jarv. maybe it was a joke, but then Xi mentioned it sometime later too.
where is koutch/
He’s put himself in self-imposed exile. Dunno why. He mentioned it on the Scott Pilgrim rant.
hmmmm… he only exiled himself from our site.
Any idea why? I can’t think of any. If that’s the case, fuck him.
It wasn’t just here. He vanished simultaneously from everywhere he used to post.
Dunno. Frank did the same.
All I can go on is his comment, in which he singles out this site. It’s a massive deal that he’s doing it, posting a comment, thats how much he hates the film. To me, that sounds like he’s exiled himself from this site specifically, because he hasn’t said “interrupt my self-imposed exile from posting on the internet”. And if that’s the case, he can go fuck himself. If it’s just a badly phrased comment on his behalf, and it’s a more general thing, then fine. But I see no reason why he’s exiled himself from our site only. Especially since we’re all such nice chaps and all so harmonious.
Frank is a strange one. I have theories on why he ran away again. But they’re only speculations.
I dont know, Koutch likes to take credit for chasing him off.
We never bicker and whatnot. Hehehehehe
bickering is different though, and except for one time there two falls ago where there was trouble brewing (which was subsequently quashed in a diplomatic manner), the site is usually well unified, and any off-kilter moments are usually diffused within hours of their genesis.
The thing is he kept posting on Gingertown and that, as it has been often remarked, is like ‘rabid ferrets fucking in a sack’
That would be the grimmest use of a sack one could imagine.
Not frequently he didn’t.
I look at Gingertown about once a week, see something that annoys me and abandon it. It’s terrible and the population just annoy me too much.
Droid is right, that’s not so much a sack as a soiled tube sock.
What’s happening over AIBN, has it basically shut down now?
dont know, except once in awhile to read something Abom wrote, I never go over there. He is or was writing for something called Cleveland Movie Blog so I usually go there now and read his stuff.
I just had a look there. I scrolled the Expendables 2 is PG13 post, and glancing at the title lines of comments was irritating enough. There’s all this really annoying “PG13 sucks. FACT!!!” type comments. Totally useless and people who use “FACT!!!” like it means something are obnoxious, cretinous fucksticks. It’s like people on facebook (another one that bores the shit out of me) making a statement then ending it with “Discuss”. Fuck off, you cunt.
I haven’t checked that in ages. Meh.
The missus is addicted to Facebook.
I see her comments sometimes because the app was automatically installed on my phone. That’s the only time I see peoples comments. I saw one funny one where she said she’d cooked you dinner then you made her watch Jack Frost 2. She didn’t sound very happy.
She just didn’t appreciate the awesomeness of a killer snowman movie set in the Bahamas.
That, sadly, isn’t a joke.
FACT! is definitely in need of retiring, nevermind it never should have been hired.
Also, they are probably the same people who think Raiders of the Lost Ark is the greatest action movie ever committed to film (nothing wrong with this argument) except it’s a PG-13 at its worst.
Shhhhh!
That’s logic. You know for a fact they shave their balls with Occam’s Razor over there.
I’m firmly in the camp that Expendables 2 needs to be R, but thats beside the point. It’s that the site is filled with totally useless comments like that. It’s why I left and never looked back (apart from the occasional look like that one).
Im fine with having that tact, but the fact that its PG-13 doesnt necessarily mean it will be worse than the first. Simon West probably ensures that part of it.
Ependables 1 might have been rated R but I couldnt see any of the damn violence in that movie anyway given the dark and hectic cutting of the last half. FACT!
I’m also in the camp that Expendables 2 needed to be directed by Mark L. Lester.
This might very well be a camp of one, but Mark L. Lester FTW!!! (And no, FTW!!! doesn’t need retiring. FACT!)
Give it to Mark Lester, hell I liked Pterodactyl more than Expendables.
COOLIO!
That’s what the Expendables needs. Some Coolio magic.
Forgotten this work of genius:
HELICOPTERS ARE NOT SURPRISING
by Professor Franklin T Marmoset, MD (Medical Deviant)
If you have seen any films, particularly action films, you may have noticed that from time to time characters are surprised by helicopters. Something will be happening in a scene, which will probably take place on a cliff edge or a roof top, and a helicopter will pop into frame suddenly, taking everyone by surprise in a ‘Holy shit, where eff did that helicopter come from?’ kind of way. I would refer you to Lethal Weapon and the recent Date Night for excellent examples of this kind of thing.
My thesis, ladies and gentlemen, is that this is bollocks.
I don’t know how many of you have ever lived in an area plagued by rampant burglary and car theft, but if you have you will have noticed the frequent presence of police helicopters, which hang in the sky (the way bricks don’t, to quote Douglas Adams) shining their shiny spotlights on some deluded fool as he makes a futile attempt to escape the police by running through people’s gardens.
What these helicopters also do is make a spectacular shitload of noise. From over a mile away, you can hear them buzzing away like giant, annoying gnats – usually at night – waking in everyone in the area for the sake of arresting some asshole who will probably end up going free to do the exact same thing next week.
I therefore submit that the notion of characters in films being surprised by helicopters, or of helicopters sneaking up on people, is preposterous due to their extreme noise levels. You would, almost certainly, be alerted to the presence of a helicopter waiting just below a cliff edge or roof top on account of the tremendous racket it would make.
This phenomenon is part of a larger problem in films – the idea that if an object or person is not in the frame it somehow magically ceases to exist and cannot be seen or heard by anyone – but that is an issue for another day. For the time being, I believe it is entirely reasonable to request that Hollywood, and the various film making communities around the world, put an end to the clearly ludicrous notion of surprising helicopters. For obvious reasons, an exemption can be made for Airwolf, which is equipped with a stealth mode and is therefore plausibly able to sneak up on whoever the hell it likes.
Thank you for listening, ladies and gentlemen. Please feel free to take one of my leaflets providing further information on this topic as you leave.
see, I miss Frank. Come back Marmoset, sniping be damned.
we are saving him for The Black Expendables–Michael Clarke Duncan, Keith David, Tiny Lister, Ving Rhames, etc…
Of course now another black movie will never be made once Red Tails bombs…Damn you George Lucas.
although i assume you are using commando as the benchmark
I am, because I haven’t seen Pterodactyl.
I give it a look every now and again, but as a rule, I don’t think I’ll post there again.
It’s the likes of Goatfucker, that every cunt has the mental age of Rain man, and they all try to develop a catchphrase that gets to me. I can’t deal with absolutes all the time- something’s either “The greatestestest ever” and they want to marry it and pop their cherries with it on their wedding night, or the absolute spawn of satan’s arsehole and may bring down the apocalypse.
And to be fair, Losers and A-Team were better than Expendables and both PG-13. I hear your argument though, as the movies its supposedly homaging are all R films from the 80s.
It’s the tone more than anything else. It needs to be silly, cartoonish violence. Not gritty, macho violence like the first one. I’m thinking Commando, Running Man, Universal Soldier type action and violence.
agreed, but it won’t be. It has suck written all over it.
the PG-13 argument really ramped up over Die Hard 4, which aside from a few dumb things–they could have gotten that f word in there if they wanted–was a movie I actually enjoyed.
Yeah, I like it.
The A-team was much, much better than the Expendables.
Surprised at that actually.
A-Team was better than Expendables. So was The Losers.
A-Team>The Losers> The Expendables.
agreed, Id probably slide Red in between Losers and Expendables. I really didnt like Expendables.
A-Team>Losers>Expendables>Red
Red was really boring.
Fell asleep in Red.
It’s the Karl Urban effect! Seriously, I inexplicably don’t mind the guy, but everything he’s in seems to be a load of shit.
Speaking of Karl Urban, there’s a Tony Kaye movie he’s in that’s never been released.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Water_Transit
I want to see that. Look at that cast.
Yeah, it’s a good cast. I wonder why it’s never been released. Tony Kaye has some movie coming out soon with Brody, about teachers.
Right.
Let’s blow this fascist popsickle stand. Have a nice holiday.
see ya Jarv…enjoy your time away from the fortress of despair, guys.
Who? Coolio?
No, Karl Urban. He was in Red and it sucked.
I liked it. I mean I didnt love it, but I had a fun time with it. My expectations were zero, though.
it was Darabont I believe who said that.
yea, it suggests something specific with WOTM. I don’t get all this particular drama honestly. Snark, debating, the occassional heated argument, sure. But the rest is dumb.
I agree. It does look like us specifically. However, I reckon that given that it coincided with his non appearance elsewhere that it’s not meant to be.
I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt, anyhow.
Jonah, have you seen Red Tails yet?
Or are you reluctant to invest your money on a ticket to a big budget movie that has an all black cast?
Right.
“Communications meeting” time.
See you later.
Good luck.
Christ. That was boring.
I’ll rent that down the road…dogfights and all. After all, it can’t be worse than Pearl Harbor.
I have so little faith in the moleman that I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it’s worse than Pearl Harbour.
it;s not worse than all of Pearl Harbor, but the dogfights don’t even have the entertaining spectacle of the attack on the harbor in the Mikey Bay movie–a scene I actually enjoyed despite the goofiness of it.
I actually enjoy the battle sequences of PH. No, the film is complete bollocks, but the battle scenes are good. And I liked Baldwin just gnawing his dialogue. He seemed to be enjoying himself. Like he’s the only one who realised what a shitty film he was in.
That’s horrendous.
So he decided to take the 40’s route and not do any character development AND doesn’t even do any good action scenes?
And like you said, it’s ripe for a real story which he chooses to ignore.
Stupid fat fuck.
Star Trek was on last night, so I watched it again. Besides rewriting the timeline (if that should bother some since its throwing decades of history out the window) and sort of forcing Spock and Kirk to be friends, I still do enjoy it. It most certainly could have been better (luckily I picked it up just as they were getting on board, missing the beginning with Kirk), but it’s most definitely more entertaining than at least half of the previous Trek movies. Not saying much, but there you go.
The lens flaring was annoying in a couple of spots, doesn’t change my feeling to the movie one way or another, but I figure I’d mention it for Droid.
It’s funny. I didn’t notice the lens flares the first time I watched ST. I did the second time, but it didn’t really bother me too much. But it really friggin’ bothered me in Super 8.
for whatever reason, lens flare bothered me more in Star Trek than Super 8. Felt more out of place in the former .
I felt the opposite. They were so forced in Super 8. Like 2 kids in their room talking and half the shot is obscured by a lens flare.
sure, but wtf is there always a giant lens flare in space for anyway?
See, in Trek, they do it even when they were inside the ship…I think when they got beamed back aboard. Super 8 did have some weird moments of lens flare, not sure why he chooses to do it, but neither took away from the movies.
How can there be so many movies out at the cinema an none of them interest me?
HAYWIRE
W.E
THE SITTER
J. EDGAR
3D – UNDERWORLD: AWAKENING
GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO
SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS
SHAME
3D – THE DARKEST HOUR
THE ARTIST
THE IRON LADY
The only one that is remotely interesting to me is The Artist, and I acquired a screener of that last night, so I won’t bother going to the cinema to see it.
Well, the cinema near work also has CORIOLANUS, which I wouldn’t mind seeing.
Haywire was decent Droid. Coriolanus hasnt been screened for us yet, but it looks good. No matter, next week is Punches with Wolves!
I could safely say that, if I had the time, I would choose not to see any of those in the theater.
Not sure when Im gonna put em up, so here’s the rundown of the weekend new for anyone that cares..
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close: Oscar-baiting tripe, don’t bother. Horn, the young kid, is a surpisingly good actor but we have to follow him around post 911 New York looking for clues that his dad Tom Hanks left him before dying when the towers fell. Max Von Sydow is pretty good as a mute old man, but otherwise its the worst kind of sentimental malarky. And there’s lots of Sandy Bullock crying. Bleh. 1 and a half stars for Sydow and the kid and a handful of decent scenes. The plot itself is mawkish and insincere.
Red Tails: Yea, it’s crap, but watching it you realize that it could have been something really good if not not for one thing: George Lucas. His damn fingerprints are on this all over the place, and he doesnt even give us good aerial battles. The visuals are murky and dont look that improved over Flyboys. The air scenes lack tension, the dialogue and delviery is horrible, and there’s something sort of insulting about his desire to reduce every character to a 1940s war movie cliche when he’s got a real story here about real men fighting against odds for their country. And I wanted Cuba Gooding Jr. to choke on that pipe. One and a half stars for the fact it;s never actively terrible, just a major wasted opportunity.
Underworld: Awakening: Damn, this series just keeps going and going. Wiseman isnt directing but its the guys who did that awful awful movie last year, Shelter. 3D was fine but useless, like always. Beckinsale actually looks about the best she ever has, between this and Contraband. The story is a bit better–focusing on the humans attempting to cure the monsters (X3 anyone?) and expanding the conflict a little bit. They try to go the Aliens route and gvie Selene a daughter to protect. I dunno, I’ve always wanted to like these movies more than I do. It’s about par for the course. It’s better than Priest, and Stephen Rhea makes a good mad scientist. 2 stars for being watchable and for a nuanced and brave performance by Beckinsale’s ass.
Haywire–Really liked this one actually. Fun, goes-down-easy, action thriller. I can see this one hitting in the same way Taken did. The plot is absurd, and the edges of the movie are filled with good actors and MMA chick isnt a great actor but she’s got charisma and presence and the fight scenes are plausible. For me, this is the good version of Salt. Probably doesnt hold up to much additional post-theater reasoning, but it’s really just a popcorn martial arts movie and as such, I enjoyed it from beginning to end. 3 stars
Wait, the aeriel battles suck? That would have of course been the entire point of me watching it. WTF.
Eh, everytime I see a preview on tv for Extremely Loud, I throw up in my mouth a little bit.
Perhaps I’ll rent that Underworld movie when the time comes.
Haywire – how does the action compare to Taken and what makes it a better version of Salt?
The action is more physical than in Taken, but there’s the lack of a growling Neeson. It’s not quite as sensational–Soderbergh isn’t a director in the Besson stable) but it’s got some really good action, moves along at a good clip…and….
what makes it, for me mind you, a better version of Salt is that I simply believed more in what the main character was doing as far as stunts and action go. She’s not as waifish as Jolie so if she were to say, jump a train from a helicopter or something, I would believe that she’d have a better chance of not snapping every bone. Really its that she’s treated as less of a cartoon. She was like a video game character in Salt, here it seems more believable and the fight scenes don’t have that ultra-slick CGI sheen.
It increases the reality, and for me, the enjoyment.
the scenes of the planes in the air look good, but when they fight, there’s no weight or tension or real geography to their battles. It’s like a big murky version of some of the Star Wars fights, and there’s this annoying habit of always switching between scenes of about five to six guys in their cockpits, each always saying some cliched thing that pertains to their character, in succession before going back to the fight.
For instance, ‘Man, Im gonna get me some Nazis! Im breaking command and doing my own thing!’ ‘No, Lightning, don’t be reckless! Man I need a drink’ Help me, black Jesus!’ ‘i can’t wait to get back tot he honeys!’ ‘I know Im young and inexperienced but I hope I make it back alive!’
Each of those is only a few words off from actual dialogue in the movie.
And for a movie that supposedly wants to honor these airmen, its so stupidly staged you would believe that there were only 6 Tuskegee flyers who singlehandedly did all the missions themselves.
So then I think it’ll fall around my enjoyment of Salt, because I love Taken. Liam is totally in his element, totally believe he could kick ass, and I thought the fights were pretty brutal.
I enjoyed Salt far more than I thought. I should revisit it again.
I do like Taken a lot. Not without it’s problems for me though.
No interest in Haywire. “this is the good version of Salt”. Sight unseen, I know that’s gonna be rubbish.
Priest is better than any Underworld. Not by much, but all the Underworld have been crap. Priest was mildly entertaining.
not rubbish, but nice of you to say so. I know you love and defend Salt, but I did enjoy this one more and the trajectory of it and whats it trying to accomplish is similar. It’s entirely plausible that people will feel this way, especially if they, like me, lost interest in Salt before it ended.
Priest was better than the three previous Underworld movies. Awakening is slightyl better, but its mostly down to the fact that I personally prefer Beckinsale’s posterior in leather over Bettanys.
Haywire just looks to me like The Bournette Ultimatum. I can only judge from the trailer, but it looks like it’s shot all “urgent” handheld shakey cam. The silliness of Salt is half the appeal. It’s like female version of Commando. Just plain silly and a hell of a lot of fun. I don’t really have much interest in drudging through some female empowerment action movie with a professional fighter who’s had her dialogue dubbed. I’ll see it some day, and I might be proven wrong and it’s a decent film. But I’m over all the Bourne style quick edited shakey gritty crap.
shaky cam has improved since the days of Bourne. It’s not terrible here and does work in most of the scenes. Its not female empowerment and its every bit as silly as Salt, minus the extra wrinkle of making her a superhero. Also, I didnt hate Salt, just didnt quite buy into it all the way.
She had her lines dubbed? I didn’t notice it, and she seems pretty natural although not a great actress. Interesting.
If its being played as anything else, then it’s being mismarketed. It’s just another dumb but fun January action movie.
Well, I’m reading into the article that Koutch linked to, which said she’d had her dialogue “re-worked” or something. And a quote from her saying “I’m just happy to appear in Steven’s movie” or something along those lines.
let me say ‘it’s no more ‘female empowerment’ than Salt. They both are to some extent, but you seemed to be using it in some negative way to set one apart from the other. They both are ludicrous action movies with a butt-kicking female stars that seemingly runs from one end of the movie to the other, just so she could run all the way back in the sequel.
The reason I see Haywire as “female empowerment” is because it looks as though Soderberghs cast 10 “name” Hollywood actors to get beaten up by her one after the other. Just seems like a “Hey, chicks are just as tough as these action stars!”. Who’d Jolie have to fight? Schreiber? My mum could beat him up.
see, now I think you are reading into it and creating distinctions that don’t exist. Schreiber or not, it was Evolyn Salt vs. seemingly half the damn government. It was clearly female empowerment.
I see what you are saying, but I do believe that it was probably concieved as a star-studded movie fromt he get-go and instead of casting Jolie or whomever, he went with a real fighter who he figured, rightfully, so would benefit dramatically from playing off actual veteran actors. This ends up being more effective than if the entire cast were unknowns all stumbling together.
Have you seen Cross Jonah?
the fantasy one with vinnie jones and clarke duncan? yes, if so.
Nah, I’m not creating distinctions that don’t exist. I definitely believe that it’s part of Soderberghs point of having all the macho male stars on the receiving end of a female fist to the face. It’s not like he’s some moron director like Marcus Nispel. There’s a point to him doing it. Otherwise just cast actors, instead of making a point in casting big name actors.
wel, even if that is the case, it doesnt make the movie bad and I thought it was handled well. My point was more that Salt doesnt get to be dismissed from ‘female empowerment’ because you think Liev could be taken by your grandmother. The truth is in a different way Noyce and co made her the female Bourne and the FE is established by making her some near superhuman who fights and kills nearly everyone she comes across. Two different roads to achieve the same thing=no distinction between one being female empowerment and one being ‘dumb fun’.
They are both dumb fun with female empowerment as their driving force.
Nah, not really. You said it yourself, Salt’s a cartoon character.
Having a more “realistic” portrayal of the men hitting female action hero is much more “female empowerment” than a silly cartoon portrayal. Couple that with the deliberate casting of the punching bags and you’ve got your female empowerment action movie.
but lets be fair, more realism than Salt is just not making her the road runner. I just dont see the difference, particuarly since you are speculating and havent seen the movie.
I don’t think Salt is female empowerment. This is correlation not causation.
She’s already “empowered” by the time the film starts, and she’s obviously physically superior to all the slobs she comes up against.
I’m speculating but I’ve seen enough of these types of movies to judge and going on the things you’ve said, like “Carrano is mostly hand-to-hand combatting in brutal fights where she’s not always immediately getting the upperhand.” leads me to believe that it’s a Bournette style movie. I don’t have a problem with the movie. I’m just not interested in it, and was just pointing out that decisions made by Soderbergh in casting tells me that it has an agenda. It’s not an agenda that matters one iota, but it’s an agenda. As you say, she never fights anyone that realistically looks like they stood a chance. So it’s “the real deal vs the fakes”. That’s how I see it. I’ve been pretty clear. I’m not sure why you guys are confused. You don’t need to agree.
I’m not confused, I disagree and I’m trying to work out where you’re coming from.
Who’s a credible action star currently working that isn’t drawing a pension? Let’s say The Stath.
If she were in fight scenes with Statham, and eventually beats the fuck out of him, then I’d lean more towards female empowerment. He’s a physical match. Pounding on Douglas (who, let’s face it, is one blow job from a Cardiac Arrest) isn’t empowering, it’s bullying if anything.
she’s not pouding on Douglas, but even so, McGregor isnt a great deal of difference is it?
Ah- McGregor is a Jedi Knight.
He should wipe the floor with her.
While I think about it, she’s got a whiff of that Kiwi stunt chick that Tarantino cast in Death Proof. At the time, there was a whole load of guff about her “being the real thing” and whatnot. That’s what it sounds like here.
Colombiana could be argued to be female empowerment, and that’s clearly a cretinous action movie with a chick in the lead.
On this note, there seems to be a bit of a glut of cretinous action movies with chicks in the lead at the moment. I think someone should remake Femme Fontaine: Killer Babe for the CIA
Physicallity has nothing to do with it. Hell, Shia LeBouf is considered an “action hero”. It’s the fact that these guys are big Hollywood stars of action films over the past 20 odd years. And she’s a nobody. It’s the fact that, when an audience goes to the movies, for the past 20 odd years they’ve seen the likes of Douglas, Tatum, Banderas et al starring in films as the heroic character that survives against the odds. Casting them all as guys trying to kill a girl is an obvious attempt to use audience pre-conceived notions and expectations. The female empowerment is the attempt to turn the audiences expectations on their head. It’s like casting Arnie as the good guy in T2 (the expectations not the female empowerment).
And you’re confused if you think I’m referring to Douglas, or any of the actors specifically in terms of their physical match to the chick.
I don’t see how fucking with audience expectations is female empowerment. I think you’re making a leap here.
Yes, those guys have been primarily cast as heroes in the past, and now they’re cast as villains trying to kill some chick? The agenda could just as equally be standing up to and defeating “the man”. You’re reading an awful lot into a piece of casting.
You even use the Arnie example. These are all actors that, as you say, have effectively been heroes etc more times than not. They’re now villains. Action movies have a lot of disposable non-entities in the villain roster, and a known hero, whereas this time out it’s a mostly (unless you follow MMA) unknown heroine.
Meh, neither of us have seen it, so I’ll reserve judgement- it may be one cunt hair away from being The Female Eunuch as far as I know.
Bitch Slap is all about female empowerment. You know it.
I’m not making a leap at all. It’s not that they’re all villains, it’s that they’re all punching bags for a woman. If, say, she fought a couple of female assassins (maybe she does, but I haven’t seen any evidence of it so far) then you could argue otherwise. But it’s too much of a statement that ALL the bad guys are notable male heroes in one film or more. It’s the message contained within the statement. And clearly it’s one that only I can see!!!
you are like roddy piper in They Live.
I haven’t seen that movie, so I don’t get the reference. But lets compromise and say I’m like Roddy Piper in Hell Comes to Frogtown.
you have never seen They Live? Remedy that pronto! Good dumbhouse fun.
Yeah, it’s on the long list of movies I need to see.
I wouldn’t consider They Live to be Dumbhouse.
‘Im here to kick ass and chew bubblegum…and Im all out of bubblegum!’ ‘One second, sweet old lady…next, formaldehyde face, yuck!’
A 15 minute inexplicable wrestling fight between Piper and Keith David for no reason?
Yes, it’s got a sci-fi idea underneath it but it’s purposeful dumbhouse execution.
“Lipstick on a pig”.
Hehehehehehe. It’s awesome.
Of course you are. You haven’t seen the film, and are assuming that her presence v famous, usually heroic, men automatically means that it’s female empowerment.
It’s titting with audience expectations, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s some kind of faux feminist screed.
What it reeks of to me, actually, is gimmicky stunt casting. Not necessarily an agenda.
As I say though- meh. Neither of us have seen it, and from the sounds of it neither of us are particularly interested. And after the thoroughly meh Salt I’m not shelling out for it either. I’d rather shell out to see the splendind performance of Beckinsale’s leather clad ass in THREE FUCKING DEEEEEE than it.
Nope. I’m not. I’m confident on this one.
And it is spectacular Jarv… It’s the Laurence Olivier of ass performances.
Seriously, I’m almost of a mind to recommend it just for 12 year old boys (of any age!) who will get their money’s worth. The problem with Underworld is Im baffled why they have made it so unspectacular and meh. It’s perfectly set-up to be this great little dumbhouse series and they are all so milquetoast. This one comes closer than the others.
I admit it though, I do have a soft spot for the Underworld movies.
Haywire is total stuntcasting, it’s just that for once it sort of pays off. I expected to hate the movie, so the fact I found a good action movie pleased me, especially when sandwiched between damn Red Tails and Extremely Loud.
moving on then, what is Cross, Jarv? You mentioned it earlier.
It came up as a Lovefilm recommendation. However, I’ve been looking into it, and I think there’s a high chance of suckitude. Although it does star Vinny, Danny Trejo and Michael Clarke Duncan.
its just garbage. dont bother.
I suspected that.
I dont think she was dubbed..she’s not extremely experienced, but it isnt painful in the same way that Red Tails was or even the Star Wars prequels where Lucas took great actors and made them seem like college theater majors.
Soderbergh helps her out, but if her dialogue was reworked it migt have been they reworked it with her. That I can see, and there are some bits of the movie where it’s clear they have been filmed after others, as she seems sometimes markedly more comfortable. Surrounding her with actors like Douglas and Fassbender and the like have helped too. I can see her becoming in a star though, because like Arnie and The Rock, she’s likable, has an energy that extends beyond ‘is she emoting properly.’
Shes a damn sight better than Arnie was in his very early days.
Yes, but does she get her tits out?
Inquiring minds must know.
No she doesnt, but for compensation, we see her beat the ever-living fuck out of Channing Tatum. That was good enough for me. She’d make a fine Astrodyke if her career doesn’t take off after this.
You know, that is one of the movie’s flaws though. So they make a big deal online about ‘shes not an actor, waaah’ but the real mismatch is in her being faced off against guys like fassbender, mcgregor, etc. because they aren’t a plausible physical match for her.
I wanted to see her go up against another real fighter at some point, or pitted against an actual asian martial artist. Her vs. the Chocolate gal. i dont know, something.
Mud Wrestling?
Actually, that’s just silly. A pillow fight would be a far better idea.
if its mudwrestling than it would need to be her vs female midgets.
That’s the point though. It’s the “this chicks the real deal, and these guys are fake” point of casting those actors.
What is?
I don’t see the problem. She’s acting, unless she actually is a contract killer for the CIA or whatever, as well. She’s not really fighting against actors that aren’t really fighting.
Am I being dim here?
Im not sure I see the point either. The battles have her beating them down,but so did the battles in Salt, and although her being an MMA fighter makes her moves, particularly close combat look more plausible, it’s not like we see a girl really beating up guys for real. If anything it’s less over-the-top because in Salt Jolie is so clearly outclassing these guys with wire-fu and Carrano is mostly hand-to-hand combatting in brutal fights where she’s not always immediately getting the upperhand.
It’s not a “problem”. I’m just saying that there’s a point to the casting, and it is part of why Haywire is a female empowerment action movie. Salt may be, but the intent is not as obvious. Casting well known Hollywood action stars as punching bags for an unknown actress (therefore the audience brings no preconceived notions about her (like Jolie) and she’s more of an “every girl”) is making a point.
I don’t see that at all. I really don’t.
She is, in a way, stunt casting because she’s an MMA chick. Casting notables that are never going to be able to hold their own against her (Douglas, FFS) isn’t empowering. Also, considering the cast in it isn’t a particularly (Fass excepted) physical cast, I really don’t see how that works.
She certainly isn’t an everygirl.
Well, I think what Droid means is ‘female empowerment’ fantasy, not necessarily like having J-lo get her hass handed too her by Bill Campbell for a whole movie just so she can rise up and kill him in the end, but that in the context of films, these two are ‘female empowerment’.
I tend to agree more with you, that it’s neither, and what would be the agenda? To show people that women can kick ass? It’s just supposed to be a fun action movie that’s giving an opportunity too a female action star.
at the end of the day none of that would hinder my enjoyment of either movie. Salt eventually lost me, Haywire did not.
As for the ‘dubbing’, it sounds like what they did was modify the voice so it didnt sound like Carrano naturally sounds. As I dont follow MMA and havent heard any interviews, I only know what Mallory Kane sounds like, and its her voice, albeit digitally modified.
I’d like to hear a proper explanation of what they mean by re-worked.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/haywire-gina-carano-mma-channing-tatum-281229
and before this goes too far into a Salt vs Haywire debate, ‘the good version of Salt’ was probably just Droid baiting. I’d say there’s maybe a half a star difference between the two movies.
Salt is a 2.5 (2 for me but I do confess that if you buy into the action it’s higher) and Haywire is a 3. Acting aside–and Jolie wasnt called on to act much in Salt anyway–I like the new gal better than AJ.
There’s a good version of Salt? is it one where and hour and half film doesn’t feel like five hours and makes some sort of stab at making any of vague sense?
Actually I sort of agree with Droids female empowerment idea in the sense that these movies do present an unrealistic view of women especially scarf and barf Jolie. The unrealistic part is that these chicks learn a couple of moves at the Y then they can beat up bigger, taller, heavier and trained men. That is a load of BS. I would say that even in the case of Carano who is “trained” a regular healthy normal sized man would whip her ass. With 95 pound Jolie fuck all that noise she would get beat down in about 5 seconds.
Of course these movies all suffer from the Scotty Evil postulate of “I have a gun in my room let me get and shoot this guy in the head” I looked at some of the ads and it looks like Haywire like Salt is based on this premise. When your entire movie has to be based on charterers not doing the smart thing you start off behind the 8 ball.
I would argue it’s no less believable than 3/4 of the actors who have played ‘action stars’ at one point or another. Take any of the recent action movies like The Losers, A-Team, stuff like that. I like those movies to varying degrees, but I sure as hell for the most part believe they can do any of that shit that they do. It’s all about presence, and the vast majority of actors and actresses lack that presense to really make action movies work.
thing is Droid is arguing that Haywire is trying for female empowerment while Salt is not…
I liked Haywire, thought it was reasonably entertaining and yes while there’s still sense of unreality, there’s something approaching plausibility in the fights with Carrano, sometimes she does get her ass kicked. I dont recall that happening to Jolie.
Nah, I’m just arguing that Haywire is blatant female empowerment. Any action heroine is female empowerment to some degree. Just Haywire, the way it’s cast, to me, is blatant. Also, when I get the chance I’m going to watch Salt again. Because I don’t recall her fighting very many people mano-a-womano. I recall her blowing shit up and shooting a lot of people.
I would disagree Pillow most of the male “action” stars its at teh very least possible to believe they might actually be what they are portraying, being male and in good shape. But what’s not believable is an anorexic like Jolie and to a lesser extent Carrano being able to dish out that much violence so easily all the time. Jolie being damn close to being Ethiopian is particularly unbelievable.
Again I’m not saying it isn’t possible for women to beat a man in a fight its is if all sorts of conditions are met, I just object to the continuous ability to whoop ass. That part is the empowerment issue at hand.
Well then that’s where Droid and I would part company both of these movies are empowerment vehicles with unreasonable female abilities. Haywire is slightly more plausible since Carrano has some training and has fought professionally even though modern MMA is basically a pillow fight now. I’m sure Conti will disagree but before Dana White gobbled up all the fight leagues under his banner MMA was highly violent and destructive way more then today.
As much as I like him: Bruce Willis.
There’s is no fucking way he can take the beatings he takes in Die Hards or The Last Boy Scout, and take out a large number of dudes.
Matt Damon. I liked the Bourne movies, but he doesn’t seem fit enough to do what he does in those movies.
Those are two actors who I think are questionable from a physical standpoint in terms of what they can do in action movies, and their believability.
Those are good examples Pillow and I agree but with one a caveat the reason it doesn’t matter for Die Hard is that the movie is executed so damn well. it doesn’t matter because the entertainment value of Die hard 1 is so high that then rampant implausibility of one cop beating a tower full of hard core trained terrorists/hijackers can safely be ignored.
Now with Damon there isn’t world where that loud mouthed untalented asshole is believable as anything but a loud mouth cocksucker that isn’t talented in the the least. the 100 cuts a second to hide the fact he couldn’t fight really sunk the Bourne movies of course the writing, generally poor execution didn’t help either.
in Salt The Ethiopian fought mano a mano during the break out from the interrogation facility, under the church and during the White House attack. I think at her apartment also but I’m not positive about that one.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/52729
Fat fucking lying useless fucking ginger cunt.
I’ve had my fair share of scary lawyer emails, and their are times where AICN has stood up and told corporations where they can shove it – and there are times when we realize that what the suits are asking is fair and just.
The only time he’s told the lawyers they can shove it is when he’s been bent over with his arse spread and he’s giving them directions.
Exactly Jarv. Apparently Harold realizes due to the plummeting TB posts and hits that he needs to actually improve the site, and there’s a line or three about him doing just that. Sure sure sure Harold. Delete yourself from there and you’ll have taken care of 75% of AICN’s problems. Delete Beaks and Pogopope from there ditto ditto and find coherent writers you might have something. Or not. It’s in the crapper pretty much as far’s I can see.
What did I mention?
I thought–and am possibly mistaken Xi–that you had mentioned the fact Doc P was shunning the site. It made me go back and look up the comment he made in Jarv’s article.
Which article?
scott pilgrim I think, although he might have jumped in during Conan review too.
Oh Ok I didn’t make the connection. yeah I did say that.
Yeah The Pazoozoo is not here but is doing his usual over to Harolds. Unsure why he bailed here, his hatred of That Place was palpable.
About Red Tails remember if you don’t like it you’re a racist or something. I think that’s what the Neck said It’s kind of hard to follow the murky logic and mumbles of Luca$ the Hut.
Ok, this look like it went to spam…Xi, if you meant to delete, I can get rid of it…but it was sitting in the spam folder.
Thanks I didn’t delete it.
I wonder why it went to spam?
It’s not even that. It’s if you don’t pay him money to go see it you’re a racist. I don’t think he cares if you like it or not, because he’s not interested in making movies people will like.
I guess the comment I was replying to was deleted.
What was the comment? I didnt even see it.
Red Tails is crap, and the sad part is that it’s because of Lucas 100%
What was really insulting is that a black awareness group in Bmore was screening the movie and they kept talking about ‘how grateful we are to George Lucas for bringing this story ot the screen’ and the head lady even goes and says ‘the director, Lucas, was trying…’
Um, no. His fithly fingerprints are all over it, but it was directed by a black man. Think you might want to have mentioned that.
Really, I have no used for GL anymore and I dont think I ever will again. Spielberg rebounded splendidly from Indiana Jones and I hope the Neck never ropes him into another one.
was the story of the Tuskegee airmen already brought to the screen in the 90’s in a HBO movie starring Cuba Gooding?
Yes, it was and it was a damn fine little movie but maybe they though tv didnt count, so Im not sure if they simply didnt know the other one existed or didnt care, but Lucas is pretending like he didnt…
Whats odd is that Cuba is in this one too, chewing on a damn pipe like he’s the ghost of Mcarthur
xi, you see elliot ness ep of Supernatural yet?
yep just finished it a few hours ago, good episode I like it. Especially Ness calling out Dean for all his modern girly man BS.
How many are there since the break?
two I think.
looking it up there has been 2 episodes but now its on break until Sweeps start in February.
Fuck’s sake. I hate the supernatural scheduling.
its not just SN most Networks either start new eps late or take a week or so off before sweeps start. The one the really sucks is March and April when they air replacement shows so the current shows can save their final eps for May sweeps.
It seems to start in November then break for a month. Then 2 episodes, then break for another month.
Totally destroys the flow of the series, and I’m struggling to remember what happened in the first half.
xi, you watch grimm at all? Silly as it is, it’s grown on me.
no I haven’t watched Grimm. I had some episodes on my DVR to watch I nuked them to make space for other things,
Hold on I did watch the pilot its the other fairy tale one with the House chick that I have not seen and nuked the episodes off the DVR.
Starting tomorrow:
The GIANT PIG trilogy.
Because I finally have Chaw
Will Droid finally cop to being Giant Pig at the end of the reviews?
Doubt it.
Looking forward to rewatching Razorback. Not so much pig hunt.
Watching catfish. If this idn’t staged, this dude is a prime moron
He’s a dick anyway.
His mates are twats as well
What’s Catfish?
Documentary about the perils of Internet relationships.
3 minutes on google, and I state categorically that it is fake.
It’s a shame actually, because it’s actually quite a good thriller.
No, I agree 100% with you. The old MMA fights were a lot more vicious, especially when you had groin shots (look up Keith Hackney vs Joe Sun, which is vicious and rewarding because Sun, Random Task in Austin Powers, is a fucking sick convicted rapist, torturer and a suspected murderer), size differences (Bob Sapp vs. little japanese guys over in Pride) and huge gaps in skill. All of those lead to really horrible one sided beatings.
It was human cockfighting back then, but also a great petri dish.
Me and a couple female friends always have this debate how I think showing women kicking men’s asses like they do in the movies isn’t really a good thing in some ways for women. It leads to false expectations (and potential trouble).
I don’t mind Gina Carano kicking ass in Haywire because I am not really looking at it as being realistic as I am looking at it as a great example of old fashion fight choreography, kind of like musicals. When I see a Gene Kelly or Fred Astaire movie, you get to admire their dancing. In most modern musicals you get to admire the editing for making someone look like he could dance. Same thing with fight scenes in movies nowadays (like Bourne and Batman). I don’t wanna see editing, I want to see a great “dancer” in a fight scene. Gina can at least pull that off.
But what I hate in movies nowadays is having girls fight like men. I’m not saying some girls couldn’t beat up guys, or even that maybe Anne Wolf wouldn’t be able to fuck me up (she scares the shit out of me), but I doubt she’s going to go toe to toe with Mike Tyson or even Floyd. I don’t like it when movies show women fighting just like guys, because how are they going to win that way? There is a reason their is both weight categories and gender divisions in combat sports, so why try to match a big guy where he is at his best, throwing punches and duking it out? That is like me getting in a fight with Brock Lesnar and deciding to out wrestle him, just stupid.
Best tough girl the last 20 years IMO is Karen Sisco from Out of Sight. I could buy J-Lo as tough and smart in that role.
I bought Patton in MI4, not so much that French pixie she fought.
Just watched Bring me the Head of Alfredo Garcia.
Good film
Cool they have been showing that a lot on some movie channel been wondering about it.
BTW, I saw the first five minutes of Haywire which includes a fight scene. Not cutty at all, with a lot of it being played out in a wide, long take. Very unlike Bourne IMO.
is it the scene from the trailer when what’s her face and some dude are walking into a hotel room while she’ all slicked up for a night out and he attacks her? Which is dumb since he’s behind her and all he had to do is put two .22 slugs into the back of her head and walk away. You know the resonable and prudent thing to do.
No, it is in a diner. Without giving anything away she actually get the shit kicked out of her first before she gets a real lucky break.
and there isn’t anybody that can put a round in her since she’s you know such a billy bad ass and all?
All these revenge type scenarios are inherently stupid. the only time they work is when they don’t make an incredibly dumb movie where the protagonist continually survives by the bad guys making stupid choices. Again it comes down to execution if they make an entertaining movie that’s not too god awful stupid then it works. Of course the lone wolf billy bad ass chick NEVER works because its just to retarded to contemplate. Its barely believable with man but at least you can strain the concept of willing suspension of disbelief to the breaking point to make it work
In that scene they are returning to the hotel room.
Before they went out, they agreed to go unarmed
and both put their guns under the mattress.
Oh my goodness….watching Nine Deaths of the Ninja. This is going to make American Ninja series look like the upper echelon of action movies.
So we have a “ninja” teamed up with an American dude and chick as part of an anti-terrorist team in a training session where the action is some of the worst you can come across. Then we have sort of a James Bondish type opening with the ninja swinging a sword with dancers around him. Then we jump to some South American country??? where some riff raff of drug traffickers kidnap a bus full of more bad actors.
Holy shit, this is going to be a long movie.
American Ninja FTW! I can’t wait to read that review.
Now one of the thugs tried to rape one of the chick hostages. Luckily for her, one of the kids doused the dude’s ass with lighter fluid and lit his ass on fire. Yes, he lit his ass on fire.
Follow that up with the killer line: “Guess you were too hot for him to handle” or something along those lines.
I think the budget for this was $8.73 and they spent five of it on a subway five dollar foot long.
THERE’S MIDGETS! TRYING TO DO KUNG FU!
Right. Beyond working on post production for my upcoming movie “Treeline”, my ruddy professional friends on twitter always insist that I maintain at least 3 projects at all time.
So I’m doing some work on the war movie “Stronghold”, but that is only a second project.
I blithely mentioned that I would Like to make a movie called “Moonwolves vs Astrodykes 3-D”, and the response was hearty to say the least.
I am proud to announce that we have cast the lead role as commanding officer of the Moonwolves: a certain Clifford Myers.
Lady Gaga has mentioned Mr. Myers as the best comedian on Twitter, and said hirusute actor/comedian/model has agreed to participate.
I submit his best work:
Now obviously, there will be a british leading man who will hold down whole movie, but I leave that to you gentleman’s kind observations.
I’m thinking a Flash Gordon with Cliffalus as Zoltor, Lady gaga as musician and like Ian mcKellen as Ming the Merciless.
Are you blokes diggin’ my vibe?
-Yours
LB
hey there Lb. Hope you are doing good. Never see you anymore unless it’s on Twitter.
Yeah…wordpress is a bit slow…just trying to keep up with twitter is almost a full time job-I forgot how funny Jarv and Droid’s writings are, though.
The really funny thing is that my CGI/EFX guy is actually an internet guru for day job-he literally wrote the Lynda manuals on web design. the point being, he just kind of asks me, Do you want to build an new AICN open forum thing? i could code that in an hour.
I’m kind of like, ohhh to run a mass conglomeration of internet movie scallawags? so tempting…but who the hell wants to be responsible for all that? Then he says-we can block I.P.s-realtime banhammer people-oh the temptation.
Mostly, my movie trailer is %95 percent done-but all of a sudden, I’m having to resurrect my POS audio studio-which has turned into an utterly boorish chore.
The point of the the whole project is to force myself to learn every step of the process- the post production ends up being a tedious cunt.
The fucking marketing and promotion is an utter bastard. I have a bunch of friends running around Sundance and slam dance as we speak, I’m trying not to be a cranky old bastard listening to their tweets, but it’s trying.
You guys are the funniest movie website going, is what I would say, I guess. It’s just so much to try and keep up with it all.
So, I’ve been so busy I can’t spare the time to mess about with wordpress-it’s too slow.
However ladies and gents like yourselves make it worth at least trying to check in occasionally. I miss the marmoset, that’s for sure.
Cheers Bronco.
Very nice of you to say so. Good luck with Treeline.
Yeah speaking of marketing in movies just saw the new tronsome RE5 trailer and I’m confused because I watched Book Of Eli yesterday and I’m no longer sure ad to which electronic company is still running in the post apocalyptic future, ipod/beats or Sony? I am glad to see that electronics are still doing really well after the apocalypse, fucking skynet.
Load of shit that trailer
I like it but they already did that same joke with the RE3 trailer.
JUST finished The Last Circus. Interesting film, I can see why Harry Knowles loves it. It’s odd, it reminds me of Oldboy in a sense, probably because its just such a mean spirited film. And the actress Caroline Bang, yeah put her down for Astrodykes.
K, I’ve sent out the request regarding tomorrow night’s Grey screening. I’ll let you know the response and further details via email.
Cool thank you.
Yeah there is a point where in a sense The Last Circus could have become pretty much Oldboy, the scene with the General. But that’s sort of glossed over in favor of the whole clown saga. I enjoyed mainly because it wasn’t what I was expecting at all. I thought it would be some lame torture movie. It’s just funny how all the geek sites love it because it was the ultimate geek tragedy they all pretend their lives are.
Koutch, it’s all set once I give them your name. I’ve sent you an email about it. There’s an Act of Valor screening the next night down there if you are also interested.
That one I havent seen yet, but they will probably screen it for us next week.
agree with you about the mean spirit of the film, which doesn’t even have the pathos of Oldboy. Ive started to sour on mean spirited film the last few years. Not dark or somber films mind you, but truly mean spirited films.
Never even heard of it. If Knowles is jizzing though: PASS.
read his Red Tails review. Appalling. He’s clearly struggling more than usual to not admit the film sucks. It’s really pathetic.
OK-
I’m alone alone until the American contingent wake up. So, Weekend’s viewing;
How to Rob a Bank- Funny, clever in places, but nearly ruined by shocking camera work (particularly in the climax). The revelation was Gavin Rossdale who was astonishingly good. Get him more work, stat, because his music blows.
Bring me the Head of Alfredo Garcia. Underrated review forthcoming. To say Mrs. Jarv hated it is an understatement. I really liked it though.
Catfish. Aside from the fact that it’s obviously faked, or at the very least staged, this is a shame. It’s a compelling story, marred by the fact that they’re presenting it as a documentary when it’s obvious “fake”.
A bit of Spidey 1. Downgrading opinion of it. It’s wank.
Played a lot of Bioshock 2. Pissed off at the fuckers that have bought the expansion pack. So much so that I’m considering buying it.
How to Rob a Bank is the Erika Christensen one right-? from about ’07?
Forthcoming reviews:
Bring me the Head of Alfredo Garcia
Chopping Mall
Massacre at Central High
Rottwieller (Start of Man’s best friend series)
Chaw (Start of GIANT PIG Trilogy)
We’ve got people staying with us, and I am *horribly* busy at work trying to brown nose myself a promotion, so no idea when they’ll go up.
what was your initial perception of Chaw?
And I thought Last Circus was interesting to a point,and then just edgy or ‘visceral’ for it’s own sake. The longer it kept going, the lest interested I became. I think this is true of most of the ‘geek’ movies Harry loses his stuff over.Demented clown showdown was amusing though.
Didn’t watch it. Still sitting at home. Had friends over in crisis so couldn’t sit down and watch GIANT PIG.
Oh.
I liked Catfish too, but it’s sort of bungled as you say by the ‘docu’ claim. Although, they post that on horror films all the time now and no one is expected to believe it. These guys just went the extra mile to really make it seem real. They even did a spot on 20/20 which further fooled me for a small bit of time. I don’t mind that, though. No docu is ever a 100% truth anyway, so for one to be 100% fiction is probably only a little bit further down the line.
These guys went on to do Paranormal Activity 3, which I personally thought was far and away the best of those films and one of the more enjoyable ‘found footage’ horrors.
I’m sorry, but they went to such enormous lengths to try to put it up as a documentary. It was nothing of the sort.
Also watched Lola Rennet, which was again brilliant. Oh, and on that note, potential Astrodyke: Chick that plays Lola.
no, you are right. However, all that does is make it not a documentary and a kind of giant ruse, but to be fair to it, the story it’s telling is more of like an internet urban legend come to life and the point it makes about things is not dilluted by it ‘not being true’. If this were some scare piece about global warming and they copped it to all being false, or some true-life murder case with distorted facts, fine, then it no longer has value.
Here, it’s just a bit of carnival trickery and I suppose there’s a place for that in cinema too.
I didn’t know that, though. So when I was watching it, I sat there and said “horseshit”. So much of it is obviously fake.
If you’re going to do something like that, then you have to make it at least semi-convincing.
I did read Harry’s Red Tails review. Apparently he’s more concerned about the cinema and that it was some kind of childhood experience than the film itself.
Found a film called “Alien v Ninja” which I really want to see. Bet it sucks though.
yes, I saw it assuming it was fake too…but the follow-up piece on 20/20 was done more realistically, and I thought they had just embellished. Now I just think it’s flat out made-up.
Either way, I was entertained, and it sounds like you were too, and apparently so even though you knew it wasnt true.
This is the thing, and I actually blame marketing to some extent and them more for it. A mate of mine was at the London premiere and witnessed a Q&A where they defended it to the hilt.
That fucking catfish story itself is so contrived that it screamed “fake”.
all part of the carnival barker schtick.
alien vs. ninja is fine. It’s more in the vein of ‘vampire girl vs frankenstein girl’ or ‘robogeisha’ than your typical Syfy monster retread. I’d say it’s a sprinkle of those aforementioned films with a good deal of Versus and man in suit thrown in.
As the schlockmeister of WOTM, you should see it.
Reminds me, I need to watch Versus. I started it, and then stopped because the missus was complaining too much.
I personally didnt like versus much but it did remind me of it.
Neither did I, actually.
I didnt think this was the case, but they are apparently still lying about it…
http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/09/16/catfish-real-fake-interview/
That’s from 2010. It’s insane- Morgan Spurlock, who should know, outed them as soon as he saw it. Anyone with 2 eyes can tell.
I agree.. if any of it is real, my theory is that the circumstance might be real, but their reactions and action contrived..It’s plausible to me that Angela exists but not that these two guys would be so easily duped and never use freaking google or any kind of investigation when things get sketchy. My guess is that they discovered pretty early on it was horsecrap and then potentially played along to get a more dramatic effect. Thats if any of it is true at all. It seems odd to me that they would be documenting something so mundane early enough to start charting the wierdness of it.
I agree. Although I lean towards that it’s 100% bullshit, if any of it is real, then it is that the “fake” facebook account may be real. That she “discovered” him through a one-off photo in the New Yorker is NOT real.
I suspect that she was one of those saddos that hits every facebook account out there, and she latched on to him. He then encouraged it with the express purpose of making a documentary. There is no way that guys as tech-savvy as them couldn’t have twigged early on.
agreed. basically, the only part I believe as plausible is that angela exists and was doing some version of the ruse in the movie. And they thought, lets make a movie out if it.
another good article about where they go wrong and why it’s at the very least a recreation, if not a complete fabrication.
http://veryaware.com/2010/09/catfish-real-or-fake-its-a-fake-sort-of/
Read that this morning. That’s a very good article indeed. Particularly given his experience.
That first post is fucking tragic underneath it.
yes, it is…and the thing I love about the internets is that there’s always someone there to do the goodwork of tearing such a post down immediately.
Hehehehe.
It did make me laugh.
Watched A Man Apart…which was meh. There were parts to Vin’s performance that I thought were decent and all of it happened after his wife was killed. I think his best bit was his reaction to killing the dude with his bare hands. But really, it was a pretty weak attempt at drug cartels and whatnot. Thou Timmy O’s performance was pretty funny.
Shouldn’t you be watching Dolph’s punisher?
Alas we now alternate dvd picks, and since I only get one dvd out at a time, dolph’s punisher will have to wait. Hopefully I get to it by the end of the week.
Or new years eve.
I shall send mrs pillow the link.
a man apart is taht the one where Diesel is a DEA agent and his family was murdered so he has to seek revenge? yeah that movie was the very definition of paint by number.
So many fucking films are nowadays. It’s so depressing.
Yup, that be the one.
So Jonah Bart, what exactly is ‘Wrong’ w/ Red Tails? Just too much Lucas =?
I watched a monsterously bad film called Zombie Apocalypse, starring poor ol’ Ving Rhames, who must have missed having a proper part (and paycheck) in MI4. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1876547/
A shockingly bad film, with acting and story so bad, I am amazed it got made. It just looks so cheap. And plot holes you can drive a truck in. Cheap looking zombies that dont frighten, yet still manage to sneak up or overwhelm our heros, who all think six months into the Apocalypse that standing still and waiving a wrench is a successful zombie killing strategy. Also when running away, it helps if you have a speed quicker than jog.
But by the end it has crossed into so bad its good magnificence! The piece de resistance was the zombie tigers. Yes, you read that right. This film has not just one, but two zombie tigers. I’m afraid it didnt reach the awesomeness of having a hat on, but it came jolly close!
But fear not, if you are a skinny girl, you can survive said zombie tiger attack by cowering against a wall and waving your rifle at its mouth. Its teeth apparently cant reach you, and it has forgotten how to use its paws, so thats all right.
I particularly want Xi to review it, as I know he will appreciate the magic machine gun mounted on a shopping trolly that fires non stop, kicking out loads of shellcasings while the bullets in the belt of the otherside dont feed into the gun. And what do you do when you mowed down a field of zombies with your Mcguyvered tank? You leave it of course, with its still full belt hanging out of it. How could you have known your next boss was a zombie tiger? D’oh!
And it was made by Syfy lol
Fuck off with that shit..no hat.
Hmm…sounds dreadful. I’ll have to keep an eye out for it.
Wait, wait-did you say ‘Zombie Tigers’ ?! Were there any zombie Lions on hand? Nothing remotely robotic about them besides? You know this could be turned into a viable movie but the Lions gotta be front and center……
I saw this around Halloween and it’s awful but awful in a great way. i don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie with alleged pro actors in it that looked and was acted worse then this one. It wasn’t even at the level of first year film student.
the Zombie tigers were a riot they were a howler and a half they looked liked somebody made them out of construction paper then over layed them on the movie.
If I remember right that was .50 Cal M2 they used. Now it’s theoretically possible what they did with it but in reality as they cut loose with it the recoil would have turned that cart right over.
It was the magic bullets that got me. If its kicking out cases, surely the bullets should also be feeding in, not static.
You want to see Komodo v Cobra then. Despite only having hand guns Paré fires something like 40 rounds on the bounce without reloading.
I don’t remember the magic bullet part but I wasn’t really watching that close and shit like that in this sort of movie doesn’t really bothered me. I was more bothered by the “college archery team” that couldn’t handle a bow.
Reason 9 million why Guardian film critics are wankers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/jan/23/oscars-best-picture-nominations-wed-like
Incredibly loud or whatever it’s called is based on an extremely bad book. An atrocious one, actually. Everything is illuminated was grotesquely overrated, and the follow up just confirmed that Saffrin foer is a one trick pony dickhead who disguises lack of talent behind narrative pyrotechnics. Mark Haddin did the autistic voice a lot better in Curious Case of the Dog at Midnight (or whatever it is called).
Dragon Tats, TTSS, ILAEC, and fucking Bridesmaids. Not one would make my watch list.
Watched Reign of Fire last night, which, while a missed opportunity, I still enjoy. Specifically for Matthew’s performance, which is just some outstanding scene chewery going on. I totally forgot Gerard Butler was in it too, playing the annoying friend of Bale’s.
Crap film that and totally wasted opportunity
I don’t think it’s a crap film, just one that doesn’t live up to its potential. At least the potential of the story/idea. Though without Matthew in it, it would drop to like a 1 for me. As it is, I’d probably give it a 2. I have a soft spot for dragons.
Oscars are in and it is a pretty unimaginative list:
Best Picture
THE ARTIST
THE DESCENDANTS
THE HELP
HUGO
EXTREMELY LOUD & INCREDIBLY CLOSE
MIDNIGHT IN PARIS
WAR HORSE
THE TREE OF LIFE
MONEYBALL
Best Director
Michel Hazanavicius, THE ARTIST
Alexander Payne, THE DESCENDANTS
Martin Scorsese, HUGO
Woody Allen, MIDNIGHT IN PARIS
Terrence Malick, THE TREE OF LIFE
Best Actor
Demian Bichir, A BETTER LIFE
George Clooney, THE DESCENDANTS
Jean Dujardin, THE ARTIST
Gary Oldman, TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY
Brad Pitt, MONEYBALL
Best Actress
Glenn Close, ALBERT NOBBS
Viola Davis, THE HELP
Meryl Streep, THE IRON LADY
Rooney Mara, THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO
Michelle Williams, MY WEEK WITH MARILYN
Best Supporting Actor
Kenneth Branagh, MY WEEK WITH MARILYN
Jonah Hill, MONEYBALL
Nick Nolte, WARRIOR
Cristopher Plummer, BEGINNERS
Christopher Plummer, BEGINNERS
Best Supporting Actress
Berenice Bejo, THE ARTIST
Jessica Chastain, THE HELP
Melissa McCarthy, BRIDESMAIDS
Janet McTeer, ALBERT NOBBS
Octavia Spencer, THE HELP
Best Adapted Screenplay
Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash, THE DESCENDANTS
John Logan, HUGO
George Clooney, Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon, THE IDES OF MARCH
Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin (story by Stan Chervin) MONEYBALL
Bridget O’Connor & Peter Straughan, TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY
Best Original Screenplay
Michel Hazanavicius, THE ARTIST
Kristen Wiig & Annie Mumolo, BRIDESMAIDS
J.C. Chandor, MARGIN CALL
Woody Allen, MIDNIGHT IN PARIS
Asghar Farhadi, A SEPARATION
Best Foreign Film
BULLHEAD (Belgium)
MONSIEUR LAZHAR (Canada)
A SEPARATION (Iran)
FOOTNOTE (Israel)
IN DARKNESS (Poland)
Best Animated Feature
A CAT IN PARIS
CHICO AND RITA
KUNG FU PANDA 2
PUSS IN BOOTS
RANGO
I take that back..Sydow did a great job and it’s nice to see him nominated…the movie was still crap though.
No Rise of the Planet of the Apes? If that doesn’t make Special effects, I’ll be pissed.
No Norwegian Wood in the foreign section, and annoyingly A Separation isn’t nominated.
It’s a terrible list.
A Separation is nominated a couple of times. No one expected it anymore than best foreign picture.
I suspect very few people saw or understood Norweigan Wood out of the voting contingent.
Apes is more deserving of a best pic nom than Extremely Crap and Incredibly Shit.
So it is. I know each country is only allowed one entry, but Japan had a very strong year, 13 Assassins could easily have made the nod.
the foreign list is a real mess. I’ve seen four of those five, and only A Separation and In Darkness really belong there.
Where is Miss Bala? I just saw that and it’s excellent.
initial Oscar nom reaction: No Tintin for Animated picture =BS.
And nominating Extremely Loud for anything other than the young lead is horsecrap.
Thoughts on the nominees for BP:
9, really? There wasn’t one more? I suspect if there was it would be, for better or worse, Rise of the Planet of the Apes.
THE ARTIST–deserving, will likely win.
THE DESCENDANTS–deserving
THE HELP– a good movie, although there were better pics this year. deserving of a nom, not a win.
HUGO–deserving, but won’t win.
EXTREMELY LOUD & INCREDIBLY CLOSE–get this off the list and replace it with Take Shelter.
MIDNIGHT IN PARIS–deserving
WAR HORSE–good but replaceable, and really an injustice to have this but not the better Spielberg movie of the year on any of the lists.
THE TREE OF LIFE–really happy to see this here, although it doesnt stand a chance.
MONEYBALL–deserving
Best animated feature:
This is sort of jacked up.
They have tried for variety and variation and botched it. Rango and KFP2 are really the only ones deserving here. Cat in Paris and Chico in Rita are arty, interesting but very slight movies. I like PIB, but it’s no Tintin. No Arriety?
A CAT IN PARIS
CHICO AND RITA
KUNG FU PANDA 2
PUSS IN BOOTS
RANGO
I’ve only seen Rango on that list.
They’re hopeless at the Animated nod. Persepolis didn’t get one, as I recall.
based on that list, Rango should win
surprise I like: Jonah Hill for Moneyball–he was very good and shoudl be encouraged in stuff like this over his dumbo ‘comedy’ persona.
stuff I dislike: Bridesmaid for original screenplay. Really? How does something like Take Shelter, Another Earth, or even Martha Marcy May Marlene not take it over this lump?
FINALLY saw The Grey, thanks to the almighty ECHO!!!!! Lemme first say that YES I was 10 minutes late BUT never fear Sir Jame Honey Badger Dale IS IN THE MOVIE, if you arrive late and wonder like me where the fuck he is…you missed him. BUT don’t worry XI! his better Rubicon co-star the ONLY reason for nepotism DALLAS FORT ROBERTS! is like the 3-4 star of the movie and he’s great like always. AS for this next part I SHALL INVISITEXT IT…..
….SO take that as you will. Otherwise enjoy the movies.
Wasn’t the Nuke the Fridge the new Flames on Optimus? (Most pathetic nerd rallying cry ever)
EHHHHH neither mine nor that TF reference will stick.
But seriously Frank because I know you are going to ask….had this been released in December with a push for a Liam Rob Roy Oscar Nom (WHILE not his best work I’d be cool with it given the DUDEcumstances) he’d probably walk away with a sweet naked man trophy. BUT for a some ODD Joey Carn’s stand alone film late Jan….yeah it fits in well with Man on A ledge (minus the
/Book Of Denzel/DayWalkers just fine.
Lemme just SAY….Echo and I conversed about this he thinks it’s better than The Edge, I think the Edge is better than it. I sort of tie The Grey and Man On Sam Worthington Growing a Mullet minus the invisitext in that they are both fine genre affrair but for LATE Jan I wanted it to go balls deep. Had this been released mid December with a push for Liam for an Oscar (WHICH FOR THIS I THINK HE COULD’VE WON based on previous experience sort of a “eh we are sorry your wife died” win, since there have been no real front runners this year) would have made sense. IT’S FUCKING tough to really talk about what bothers me about this. ALLL i will say is that IF YOU are interested in this movie, it’s better to see it on the big screen. Something about survivial movies on the big screen that just makes them better than at home, I think it’s the lack of insucurity that adds to it, while at home you are like….ehhhhh welll John Ritter, I would never have boght that satellite so this movie sort of misses the mark for me.
Riveting cricket today.
Bloody Pakistan are the most boring fucking side around. England have bowled well, Broad in particular looks like the best bowler in the world not called Dale Steyn at the moment. However, only 4 down and the dirty fuckers are just grinding away again.
Good glad to Broad is rounding into form. That bastard bowling had me concerned like he wasn’t bowling up to snuff as a fellow who won all those Man of awards the, 5 wicket hauls, the hat tricks and test match Century’s.
Hehehehe.
Got to keep up appearances when Droid isn’t here.
wait I can do that!
Bloody poms you can’t ever enjoy your winning you never think you won good enough
This is true. Sadly.
Winning still comes as a surprise to us.
Nerdtown is ranting about the Hulk and whatnot. Some loser posted about how he wanted a version of Hulk running around in the buff fucking buses and things. Which is weird and more than a little disturbing.
Oh and about Thor’s cape as well. I don’t think any of them have ever seen a naked woman.
Right. Honours even at the end of day 1. Pakistan haven’t scored enough, but should still get over 300. Having said that, if England can keep Misbah off strike then they can rip Ajmal, Gul and the other tail ender out. Who can’t bat worth shit.
Going to depend on the batting. If England can bat out 5 sessions, I’d expect to win from here, but if they collapse again (more likely) then it will be Pakistans.
why would you want to see a giant green cartoon fuck a bus? That’s some real Cronenberg’s Crash level of fucked up shit right there
They are a disturbed bunch. And the level of whinging is ridiculous. Someone made the perfectly valid point that even that piece of shit Ghost Rider is getting a sequel, whereas Ang Lee’s Hulk was so bad that marvel had to reboot it and they practically fell over each other to put out justifications for that turd.
In other uninteresing news, the Guardian are upset because the evil tories want to cap welfare at $40,000 per household.
That’s fucking outrageous. Me and Mrs. Jarv both work and earn OK, and people are upset because they want to cap what these dole scrounging fucks earn at nearly as much as we do after tax for sitting on their arses. I had no idea it was that high,
They make 40 gur a year? Christ go on the dole man.
No, they make a lot more. That’s what the tories want to cap it at. I think, though, that includes Housing, child benefit, Jobseekers and so forth.
Still, though, fuck- how can people be upset at benefits being capped at £26,000. That’s insane.
The Hulk humping a bus? Thats one disturbed Jerome Bettis fan-
Mentally ill. No other explanation for it.
Pazooz and Dvader are still there at least, MrGeyser.
I’ve only seen DocP on that SOPA thread arguing with a piece of pondlife.
I don’t know how vader does it.
It was at least fun back in the great Jurrasic Kong wars or in the Lotr/Sw prequels era. Now? You see 9 replies on a Tb and that puts it into the days top 10 or whatever. Sad.
I noticed that even with a new SW prequel release it barely got into the hundreds. They’ve killed it with shitty format, crap content, and hopeless moderation.