Things You Should Only Click To Reveal If You’ve Already Seen It | ||
| ||||
|
I liked it a lot. It’s pretty much a comedy, albeit a heavy-hearted one. As a drama, it’d be slightly too simple: we never truly understand the exact nature of Albert’s speech impediment or its causes, since both physical and psychological remedies both help somewhat, so there’s no real narrative to that element. The plot is simply that it becomes increasingly important he be ready to take the throne, and his speech continues to be a problem until it isn’t. Which is fine, because it’s funny. Helena Bonham Carter is charming as the queen mum, Geoffrey Rush has some fun with the class difference, and Colin Firth shows an entertaining disdain for aristocracy and also swears and sings. | ||
Pentadact: Tyshalle: it's bothered me before, too. I've looked into it now, and the answer is basically no. CSS is useless. The only methods that might work require every image to be in its own container, which'd mean not only doing that manually each time but also going back and editing 500 posts.
| ||||
|
I remember hearing something vaguely positive about Easy A, but to be honest I watched it because I have a weak spot for trashy coming of age movies set in high schools. I wasn’t planning on ever telling anyone. I didn’t realise it was going to be excellent. It’s nothing to do with grades – the title’s a nod to The Scarlett Letter. It’s about a girl who gets a false reputation for sluttiness, and decides to wear it with a corset and a Hawthorne reference. Accordingly she’s funny, smart, and like an unprecedented proportion of the characters, likeable. I’ve never liked so many people in one film before. This is her dad: It wants to be an eighties feelgood movie – explicitly at times – but is slightly too knowing and witty to feel like one. So instead it just references them, somehow incorporating Say Anything, Ferris Beuller’s Day Off and the Breakfast Club into its ending. The biggest laugh, though, was not a clever reference to anything. Quiznos guy: Try the honey mustard chicken at Quiznos! | ||
Flash: thanks for the prompt too. Passed this over but on your recommendation watched it last night with the GF and we enjoyed it. Better than most high school based movies... main actress was really funny and good at what she did.
| ||||
|
Written by the West Wing’s Aaron Sorkin, directed by Fight Club’s David Fincher, starring Zombieland’s Jesse Eisenberg, produced by Kevin Spacey for some reason, and perhaps the first and only film to co-star Justin Timberlake as the founder of Napster. The fact that it’s about the founding of Facebook, which I’m aware is controversial but have no actual knowledge of, is ideal. “I will feel like I’m being informed about something I’m interested in,” I thought, “and be unable to refute any liberties the film takes with the truth, allowing me to enjoy it entirely.” Yep, that happened. The last Sorkin film I saw, Charlie Wilson’s War, was good but didn’t really have his stamp on it. Given that this is also a book adaptation, and also based on nonfiction, I figured that would be the case again. It’s absolutely not: the film opens on a conversation in a bar that would be utterly tedious if it were written by anyone else. “Since we started on the topic of Final Clubs, I think I may have missed a birthday,” Zuckerberg’s girlfriend says, some way into it. About a series of painful lawsuits, it doesn’t seem like an immediately funny topic. But right from the start, Sorkin finds masses to sink his teeth into: Zuckerberg’s morally bankrupt hot-or-not project, his withering dryness in the discovery sessions, his inability to stand in the same room as a Carribean themed party showing a loop of Niagara Falls. And it’s strangely exciting. Knowing the world-changing degree to which the idea will ultimately explode makes their early celebrations of “600 members!” and the selling point of “exclusivity” tantalising to watch. And makes the ethics of the transgression all the more important. As the film depicts it, Zuckerberg’s deception makes him absolutely guilty of something, and something we instinctively feel should undermine Facebook. But rationally, what’s shown in the film doesn’t constitute intellectual property theft. It’s just a sort of extreme breach of contract. If you had to convict him of anything beyond that, it’d be several counts of – as the film eloquently puts it – “trying really hard to be an asshole”. Painting the whole thing as an attempt to impress an ex-girlfriend is mawking it up a little, but at the same time I do buy the frowny nerd rage it entails. Eisenberg does a great impression of the kind of balled up neuroses that really do drive a certain type of genius to do something spectacular with his good ideas. Whether that’s a hint of authenticity or just good acting, I don’t know.
More Brevity Week
| ||
Bret: Well, this was the push I needed to watch.
Glad I did. Good film. Today was the best free money day ever. | ||||
|
Toy Story 3 fares much better on Rotten Tomatoes, 99% positive. Still… can’t… resist… reading… negatives… Toy Story 3 is so besotted with brand names and product-placement that it stops being about the innocent pleasures of imagination—the usefulness of toys—and strictly celebrates consumerism. Yeah, I’m sure Fisher-Price are making a mint out of all that juicy promotion for the fucking 1962 Chatter Telephone. How crass, for a film about the experience of childhood play, to feature anything anyone actually played with. The toys wage battle with the daycare center’s cynical veteran cast-offs: Hamm the Piggy Bank pig, Lotsa Hugs and Big Baby. The fact that you’re listing Hamm the piggy bank as one of the daycare’s toys seems to suggest that you either didn’t watch or failed to comprehend the child’s film you’re reviewing. It also means you haven’t seen the previous two, which would be surprising but not criminal if you didn’t dismiss them both in your intro. But none of these digital-cartoon characters reflect human experience; it’s essentially a bored game that only the brainwashed will buy into. Uses of the term “human experience”: 1,960,001. Besides, Transformers 2 already explored the same plot to greater thrill and opulence. Wow, I hadn’t noticed the connection. Here, then, is the entire plot of Toy Story 3 – click to reveal, since it’s obviously a major spoiler. While Toy Story 3’s various hazards and cliffhangers evidence more creativity than typical Pixar product (an inferno scene was promising, Lotsa Hugs’ cannily evokes mundane insensitivity), I admit to simply not digging the toys-come-to-life fantasy (I don’t babysit children, so I don’t have to) nor their inevitable repetition of narrative formula: the gang of animated, talking objects journey from one place to another and back—again and again. Hi. You dropped these: ……….. (You also dropped a ’ , but it landed on Lotsa Hugs). It recalls how Tim Burton’s atrocious Alice in Wonderland repeated narrative stasis without exercising the famous line: “It takes all the running you can do just to stay in the same place.” This is exactly right, for anyone and everyone under the impression that ‘recalls’ means ‘has nothing to do with what I’m about to waste this review giving you my opinion on:’ Burton’s omission of that legendary, therapeutic slogan parallels how Toy Story 3 suckers fans to think they can accept this drivel without paying for it politically, aesthetically or spiritually. Deranged as this review already was, it did lack the special kind of crazy it takes to imply that people are going to ‘pay’. Thanks for completing the set. My own review isn’t going to be much cop either, so I’ll just add it here. Spoilers. It was lovely. The new toys introduced are so colourful, exciting and instantly funny that the returning characters started to look a bit uninspired. Big Baby goes from being truly horrific to powerfully sympathetic without really changing. Until Mr Chuckles, I’d never seen an animated character who could crack up an entire audience on sight. And the fiery, twitching pupils of the vigilant security monkey instilled more stress, anxiety and genuine fear than the Eye of Sauron ever has. The story itself succeeds by creating a more interesting conflict than the whims of an asshole child, intelligently borrowing the most entertaining bits of prison breakout movies, and milking the basic conceit for more fun than it has any right to. There’s that, and there’s Timothy Dalton as Mr Pricklepants. | ||
kevin: buzz fight lotso
| ||||
|
When I discovered Inception had a merely very good percentage of positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, I became fascinated by the bad ones. I expected a lot of writers who were simply confused, and largely that’s the case, but some of them seem to be trying for some kind of award for clumsy criticism. Many of them, happily, are just terrible. This isn’t a round up of negative reviews. Some of them, like Salon’s, do a good job of explaining their opinion without whining, lying or embarrassing themselves. This is a round up of the other ones. Inception gave me a strange sense of déjà vu, I felt like I saw this movie earlier in the year and didn’t like it when it was called Shutter Island. D Your words gave me a strange sense of deja vu, Eclipse Magazine. I felt like I’d read words about movies before, and I didn’t like them when they were your A-grade review of Shutter Island.
While many critics are raving about Inception, I’ve never heard so many expressions like “What in the BLEEP was that about?” upon leaving the theater after seeing the film. And, although I don’t believe moviegoers are unintelligent, I can’t help comparing this movie’s transitions to someone reading the Cliff Notes of a Shakespeare play to a pre-school class. Inception becomes its own nightmare by trying to be “too smart.” 2/4 Who are you even quoting there?
You’ll sit in your seat, possibly with overly salted popcorn, and immediately become bewildered. But then you’ll tell yourself the creative force behind Following (1998) and Memento (2000) is always in control. Of course you’ll soon know what’s happening. But a half hour later exasperation will start settling in over you like a cup of cherry Jell-o firming up in your fridge. Then another 20 minutes will pass, and you’ll start feeling like Timothy Leary’s severed, cryogenically preserved head. Will there be any relief arriving at all? Your similes, like Timothy Leary’s severed head in a salty popcorn box of ill-set exasperation jell-o, are flimsy and smell bad.
And what about Dom Cobb himself? Is his unlikely moniker meant to suggest Dummkopf, the German word for a dope? That would seem entirely counterintuitive. But, as I say, whatever. Inception is basically a complicated heist flick — there is no mystery to ponder and penetrate. Thanks for taking the time to highlight that this is now the second time you have summarised your own point, in a review, as “Whatever”. For all of Nolan’s attention to detail, major logic holes jump off the screen without 3-D glasses. At one point someone is firing at the bad guys with a standard-issue weapon when another character suggests he ‘dream’ up a better gun. Voila, a massive gun is suddenly on screen. Why don’t all the heroes try that trick? For all your attention to detail, you didn’t pay any attention to detail. That isn’t what happens, and it’s explained several times why changing the dream too much is dangerous.
Reviews are ideally an assessment of a film’s value as entertainment or enlightenment, and should never be a necessary guide when attempting to figure out what in the world is going on in a movie. Such is the case with Christopher Nolan’s mind over matter blockbuster with a back to basics indie soul Inception, a confounding riddle of a story where the characters are lost inside one another’s dreams without a clue. So is Inception accessible enough to plant the idea of an entertaining experience in viewer minds? In your dreams. 2/4 Such is what? What is the case? What? Inception is a review that isn’t a guide? Your review is a review that doesn’t need to be a guide? Isn’t that a good thing? Or are you saying your review is a necessary guide? Any of the nine ways to salvage the verbsputum you’ve dribbled there into a working paragraph result in a false one.
It may still be impervious to criticism, simply because no one short of a NASA systems analyst will be able to articulate the plot. The sometimes hallucinatory images erupting out of the narrative murk of Inception suggest that the entire enterprise was contrived as an alibi for special-effects wizardry. I did it in two sentences, and I play computer games for a living. For my next trick, I will know what the word alibi means.
In(c)ept(ion) It may look like Planet Hoth because Planet Hoth was shot on planet Earth. In Norway. Star Wars didn’t actually make a planet.
It’s emotionally icy, without a recognizable human being in it, and the story feels like nothing more than a con – an ambitious con to be sure, but one that’s made up as it goes along.
The accomplishments of ‘Inception’ are mainly technical, which is faint praise only if you insist on expecting something more from commercial entertainment. That audiences do – and should – expect more is partly, I suspect, what has inspired some of the feverish early notices hailing Inception as a masterpiece, just as the desire for a certifiably great superhero movie led to the wild overrating of The Dark Knight. Yes, that’s what happens when you go into something with high expectations and they’re not met. You hail it as a masterpiece. If the career of Christopher Nolan is any indication, we’ve entered an era in which movies can no longer be great. They can only be awesome, which isn’t nearly the same thing. In Inception, Nolan does the impossible, the unthinkable, the stupendous: He folds a mirror version of Paris back upon itself; he stages a fight sequence in a gravity-free hotel room; he sends a train plowing through a busy city street. Whatever you can dream, Nolan does it in Inception. Then he nestles those little dreams into even bigger dreams, and those bigger dreams into gargantuan dreams, going on into infinity, cubed. He stretches the boundaries of filmmaking so that it’s, like, not even filmmaking anymore, it’s just pure “OMG I gotta text my BFF right now” sensation. Wouldn’t it have been easier just to make a movie? He’s got you, Chris. You should have made a movie! Why didn’t you think of it? You Dom Cobb, which MTV tell me is the same as a German insult. Truly, we live in a dark age of cinema where everything is depressingly awesome.
It boils down to an ordinary spy flick anyway, with laughable dialogue. One way to salvage some fun with this blunderbuss would be to fall asleep while watching and dream up a better movie yourself. Try it. You’ll avoid a headache.
Given that this is his third film in a row in which he deals with a wife who’s unbalanced to some degree (see also Shutter Island, Revolutionary Road), this loop looks to be spilling out from the frames of this feature. Back away from the unhinged women, Leo, before it’s too late. Maybe try a role addressing an alternate lifestyle for a change? Something like, um, J. Edgar Hoover? (*Note: the Hoover project, with Clint Eastwood directing, is supposedly DiCaprio’s next project.) The best closing jokes are the ones you have to explain in parentheses afterwards. In a telling moment at this reviewer’s screening, after a character asked, “Whose dream is it this time?” the audience chuckled in unison. Our thoughts exactly. 2.5/5 The audience laughing at that line is indeed telling: it’s telling you that was a joke. Misquoting and misunderstanding it doesn’t make it work as a gag in your review.
But this is a movie, an elaborate construct of illusions designed to extract money from paying audiences – or, in more ambitious cases, to implant something in their imaginations, such as a moral or a fantasy. Or a product placement. How like the line of work of our hero, Cobb (DiCaprio), since he and his colleagues extricate secret information from a target by entangling themselves in a deceiving dream. Wow. A lot of the reviews I’ve quoted here make ponderous, cringe-worthy attempts to force some of the movies themes into their conclusion, but this – wow. It’s like you started, then changed your mind, then forged ahead anyway, then added a laborious explanation, but one that really only explains why the two things are completely different. I’m sort of in awe. And now, the motherlode. The New York Observer’s sprawling, frothing, delusional and atrociously written rant. It is both too monstrous to quote whole, and too egregious to single out just one part, so here are just some of the worst offenders. At the movies, incomprehensible gibberish has become a way of life, but it usually takes time before it’s clear that a movie really stinks. Inception, Christopher Nolan’s latest assault on rational coherence, wastes no time. It cuts straight to the chase that leads to the junkpile without passing go, although before it drags its sorry butt to a merciful finale, you’ll be desperately in need of a “Get Out of Jail Free” card. It’s sort of weirdly poetic that you open your review with a point about how immediately bad Inception is, and do so with a Monopoly metaphor so miserably shoehorned that no-one could think they were about to read a good review. Like other Christopher Nolan head scratchers – the brainless Memento, the perilously inert Insomnia, the contrived illusionist thriller The Prestige, the idiotic Batman Begins and the mechanical, maniacally baffling and laughably overrated The Dark Knight – this latest deadly exercise in smart-aleck filmmaking without purpose from Mr. Nolan’s scrambled eggs for brains makes no sense whatsoever. Is it clear that I have consistently hated his movies without exception, and I have yet to see one of them that makes one lick of sense. I don’t know, is it? Your sentence about the movie not making a lick of sense doesn’t, you know, that. It’s the easiest kind of movie to make, because all you have to do is strike poses and change expressions. It all culminates on skis in the middle of a blizzard, as Leo is pursued by machine-gun-equipped snowmobiles, but you don’t even know who’s driving them. I have no idea what the market is for this jabbering twaddle-probably people who fritter away their time playing video games, which I’m willing to bet pretty much describes Christopher Nolan. He labors over turning out arty horror films and sci-fi action thrillers with pretensions to alternate reality, but he’s clueless about how to deal with reality, honest emotions or relevant issues. It’s kind of hard to grapple with all of the crimes this paragraph commits, so let’s stick to the simplest: what arty horror films? | ||
From Holland said...: Movie maker don't explain everything in there movies thats true. But if you want to tell you're story a good framework is gold. Take Jurassic park for instance, part one had a 15 to 20 min sequence explaining why there are dinosaurs on the island. Its was a clever mix between fiction and science. This had to be told because its the keystone of the story. The audience is buying in to the explanation and they can sit back for the ride.
The explanation for mutants in X-men, another leap in evolution caused by mutation. Okay you can accept that ore not. If you do you can enjoy the X-men movies. But its just kinda strange creating an entire movie about entering dreams, and not explaining the mechanism ore perhaps the impact on society. Its the unexplained centerpiece of the movie. literately not one mention is made. And that in a movie that tries to explain the smallest details. Because the movie is not build on a solid foundation i could not click with the the characters and drama you are right about that. My purpose fore writing the comment above was not to call people that liked inception lemmings ore lairs and i apologize if it seems that way. If you like the movie and the concepts then thats great and you got what you paid for. Reading the comments above just gave me the sense that people who don't like the movie a retarded, and so i probably was a bit sharp in my comment. | ||||
|
I rewatched Blade Runner because it came up a lot when I asked for visual inspiration for my game. Almost everything about it is still brilliant, except the main character. I’m not sure how I’ve never noticed this before, but he’s an idiot. He screws up everything he does, and the only way the film can even progress with him alive is through a series of increasingly ridiculous deus ex machinas to rescue him from his astonishing lack of skill. Here’s a summary of his encounters with all of the replicants he’s apparently the only one good enough to kill. Stills by Pikturz. 1. Snake Lady. He fails to convince her to let him check her dressing room, gets in a fight with her, loses and is nearly killed. The replicant stops short when she hears voices approaching, and runs away. Deckard shoots her. 2. Leon. He fails to recognise Leon until it’s too late, gets into a fight with him, loses and is nearly killed. Another replicant shoots Leon for him. 3. Rachel. He tells her she’s a replicant, forces her to kiss him, then helps her evade capture. 4. Pris. He fails to recognise Pris because she is sitting still, gets into a fight with her, loses and is nearly killed. Pris takes a break to do some acrobatics and he shoots her. 5. Roy. He fails to shoot Roy, loses his gun, gets into a fight with him, loses, runs away and nearly kills himself. Roy saves his life and then dies of his own accord. Nice job, twat. | ||
Bret: Huh. Pictures are gone.
Been that way for a while and I missed it? | ||||
|
Jesus Christ. That was a bit exciting. Tony called it “the Matrix for grown-ups,” which I like. Because it’s important that this isn’t just smart, it’s cool. It’s exactly the film you’d want from a guy with the brains to make something as convoluted as Memento, and the flair to make an action film as spectacular and compelling as The Dark Knight. I’ve never really seen anything that keeps my higher brain functions chewing on new ideas the whole way through, while still being a ferocious and stylish action film. This guy should be a director or something. There’s a lot to spoil, so everything from here on out is hidden until you’ve seen the film and clicked here. | ||
TooNu: Hey Tom!
The missus and I saw Inception yesterday afternoon and we had a conversation about it that lasted almost the entire length of the actual film. A great movie by any accounts. I just wanted to get that on record, on the internets, here on your site...ok bed time. | ||||























Impression Of A Buddy
Don't Make Me Play Football Manager
Masq
Oh My God What The Fuck Barbecue
The Best And Worst Of Mass Effect 2
A Stab At Meet The Spy
The Team Fortress 2 Experience
Fallout Girl

Subscribe to all posts
Well, okay. I was curious from the Whedon and Fran Kranz thing.
The trailers looked generic dead teenager.
Glad I went anyway.