Just to be clear my sarcastic "thanks" was due to y'all canceling each other out, not the brevity of the posts. Expanded thoughts are always welcome, obviously (and I generally agree with you -- though I remain impartial), but a simple Si! or No! can be enough to affect the outcomes of this round.Quoting Skitch (view post)
lol I didn't even see your thanks...I felt the need all on my own.
Just wait for more input we're not all refreshing the page every 10 seconds.
Do we really need TWO Edgar Wright films in Shaun of the Dead AND Hot Fuzz? I've watched The Hangover twice and LOL both times. I'll put it up there with Tropic Thunder and Zoolander. I don't remember anything about the Wright film but I rated it respectably.
Last edited by Yxklyx; 08-05-2021 at 08:22 PM.
:raises hand:
It's one of the best screenplays of the decade and established that the quality of Kaufman's writing matched (if not outmatched) his originality.
Also, O Brother Where Out Thou? Over Synecdoche, NY. Sorry Charlie...
Stuff I've Watched out of *****
The Last Duel - ***
Only Murders in the Building: **
Squid Games: **.5
Genuine question: Is it one of the best screenplays of the decade? Admittedly I haven't seen the film since January 2003, and I remember finding it entertaining at the time, but I'm not convinced that explicitly stating a rule of Hollywood screenwriting (no voice-overs!) and then flaunting that rule for no other purpose than sticking it to Robert McKee requires all that much imagination.
Just because...
The Fabelmans (Steven Spielberg, 2022) mild
Petite maman (Céline Sciamma, 2021) mild
The Banshees of Inisherin (Martin McDonagh, 2022) mild
The last book I read was...
The Complete Short Stories by Mark Twain
The (New) World
If flaunting the rule was the only purpose it served, you'd be right. However, the voiceover is a thread that runs throughout to give voice to his insecurity. In that moment, he feels like a fraud and his worst fears are realized. At the same time, the entire film has shown that voiceover isn't script death and any film technique is not inherently bad, just historically used poorly. It is quirky, but not without purpose, which was what the problem with the spate of quirky experimental screenplays it inspired.
Stuff I've Watched out of *****
The Last Duel - ***
Only Murders in the Building: **
Squid Games: **.5
Yes.
I mean ... at first watch, yeah.
Subsequent watches, a little more than that. He flaunts McKee's rules in dialogue but meets them in action. What makes it special is that he doesn't violate the character's integrity to do it. If you watch the character arcs closely, there's no other way for the movie the end than the way it did.
I think that's what makes it such a skillful exercise. That shit is hard to do, and most don't manage to do it.
I HAVE rewatched A History of Violence in the last ten years. You bet your ass I'll be getting that back in the game. Weak ending, but that first 90 minutes or so is close to masterful to me.
Adaptation is much better than SNY, and if we're gonna have one from Charlie, I'd vote Adaptation all day. It has real arcs whereas SNY is soulless and cruel, even if it an incredible exercise in filmmaking.
Have any of you read the History of Violence graphic novel? The end of that was truly one of the most fucked up things ever. The movie shying away from that was both surprising from a body horror expert director, and a let down.
Whether it helps or hurts LOTR's chances in the later rounds (and I can see it going either way), combining seems like a big move considering it's 10 hours of massive-budget high fantasy battling 1 on 1 against regular ol' movies. How can something like A History of Violence, Ghost World, or even City of God (+ plenty of others) stand up against it? Furthermore, what makes it so distinct from other trilogies/series? If it's the fact they were all released during the 00s, that's weak. But even then, wouldn't Raimi's Spider-Man movies qualify? I'm listening, but I'm not convinced.
Unlike trilogies like Raimi's Spider-Man, I feel like the LOTR "trilogy" is three acts of one story, where as Raimi's Spider-Man is the "continuing adventures" of Spider-Man. Ditto most trilogies and sequels.
Edit: Having just finished the fear street trilogy of films (which I would consider one film), it was completely, entirely WAAAAAAAYYYYY too long. That should've been one film. So I think the runtime on LOTR doesn't factor in to me. It uses its time wisely for the most part.
Last edited by Skitch; 08-06-2021 at 01:01 AM.
"Lord of the Rings" is a single story. The reason the novels were split into 3 volumes is due to a technical limitation in publishing (and also maybe a nod to Victorian literature?). The reason the movies were split should be obvious.
Raimi's "Spider-man" movies involve the same characters in wholly different narratives. They're not the same story or even a contiguous narrative.
ETA: That said, I think LoTR should be considered 3 separate movies for the sake of discussion. It just makes it easier.
Extreme no to this, which feels almost as fraud as some of the leading performances getting into supporting categories at awards shows.
Midnight Run (1988) - 9
The Smiling Lieutenant (1931) - 8.5
The Adventures of Robinhood (1938) - 8
Sisters (1973) - 6.5
Shin Godzilla (2016) - 7.5
I, for one, would have a slightly more favorable opinion of LotR if it were considered one film. It seems like an unfair advantage, even if it is of-a-piece in a way most trilogies aren't. At the same time, it was all filmed at the same time and is often viewed in one sitting. I've seen the directors cut of each daisy-chained in one binge sitting two times. I found it taxing, but also a much more fulfilling viewing experience. Official vote, though: consider them isolated films and let the chips fall where they may. Will MC agree with the academy that Return of the King is the best surrogate for the trilogy? That right there is draaammmmaaa!
Stuff I've Watched out of *****
The Last Duel - ***
Only Murders in the Building: **
Squid Games: **.5
I hear you, and I'm not buying them as one film. What about Star Wars: Is A New Hope/Empire/Jedi a trilogy, or is it a single story?
If the underlying issue is Return of the King or Two Towers should be LOTR representative instead of Fellowship, then don't even think about it. Fellowship has the best rep overall, and it's the first so it just makes sense.
Despite saying I want History of Violence back...
I prefer Assassination of Jesse James.
I will GO BACK IN TIME with ROBERT FORD and assassinate PRIMER.
Because Primer is only a neat idea in that it's "realistic time travel" and nothing more. Nothing else is cool about it. The acting is simplistic. The cinematography sucks. Even the screenplay is overly wordy to make time travel scientific again. OUT!
Jesse James has maybe the best cinematography of the 2000s, a top-rated score, and an ensemble that would run circles around Primer and most other movies.
Forget if I broke a rule or not, but worth the shot.
Yes to this! Fuck Primer and its impressive use of a dirt-budget resources. Sure, it is a really great homemade movie with a decent concept, decently executed. Yet, it benefits a lot from the moment in which it was released and let's not conflate novelty with quality.
If E has broken the rules, then I will officially stan for the Assignation of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. It's one of the most beautiful and deliberately paced revisionist Western's that I've seen. The acting is top shelf and it has a level of basic filmmaking competence that Primer lacks. Plus, I haven't watched it in over a decade, but isn't Primer a really reductive explanation of time travel that grasps for theoretical physics but lands somewhere around stoner-level explanation?
Last edited by quido8_5; 08-06-2021 at 01:44 AM.
Stuff I've Watched out of *****
The Last Duel - ***
Only Murders in the Building: **
Squid Games: **.5
Sweet Christmas alright fuck LOTR
Can't tell if you're playing devil's advocate ... or?
Individually or collectively, The Lord of the Rings trilogy is just so-so. Has any single book done more harm to Hollywood filmmaking than Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces? Hollywood movies of the studio era were profoundly modern: stars like Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, and Barbara Stanwyck played assertive, modern women who challenged (within certain limits) traditional gender roles. Then Campbell came along and convinced Hollywood that the key to its popularity wasn't its modernity but its ability to tap into mythic structures that are supposedly timeless and universal. Now Hollywood movies seem perpetually stuck in the Medieval period, endlessly and unimaginatively repeating the same hero's journey while banishing sexiness from the screen altogether.
Just because...
The Fabelmans (Steven Spielberg, 2022) mild
Petite maman (Céline Sciamma, 2021) mild
The Banshees of Inisherin (Martin McDonagh, 2022) mild
The last book I read was...
The Complete Short Stories by Mark Twain
The (New) World
I don't see much of a connection between those two points, especially in the context of a trilogy that gave us moments like this...
...but whatever you say, I guess.
There used to be a time when Hollywood films were just ahead of the culture. Part of what's fascinating about a '30s film like Gone with the Wind, for instance, is its ambivalent attitude towards its heroine, which reflects certain ideological tensions within the United States during the Depression: the modern woman who flaunts social norms is simultaneously a cause for anxiety (and therefore must be punished) and an object of fascination. In other words, classical cinema provided a space in which the contradictions of modernity could be negotiated for a mass audience. In attempting to be timeless and mythic, Jackson's trilogy doesn't speak to the early 21st century in the way that Gone with the Wind spoke to the 1930s.I don't see much of a connection between those two points, especially in the context of a trilogy that gave us moments like this...
...but whatever you say, I guess.
Just because...
The Fabelmans (Steven Spielberg, 2022) mild
Petite maman (Céline Sciamma, 2021) mild
The Banshees of Inisherin (Martin McDonagh, 2022) mild
The last book I read was...
The Complete Short Stories by Mark Twain
The (New) World
Just trying to get to the bottom of whether it should be considered one or three films. It'll remain three separate films for this tournament.
Now, to catch up with some other stuff:
E, you're not going to like this, but you paired the wrong two movies. Primer replaced Elephant, not Jesse James. Paprika replaced Jesse James. So you have three options: 1) Save Jesse James by getting rid of Paprika. 2) Save Elephant by getting rid of Primer. 3) Retract your block and live to fight another day.
The 32 movies that are on the bubble, and therefore able to be replaced:
[]
+ O Brother, Where Art Thou? is a musical, Coens are respected filmmakers, Kaufman has three movies in the tournament
- Coens have two movies in tournament, MCers chimed in with more dissent (Baby Doll, quido) than support (Skitch)
= Synecdoche NY is out! O Brother, Where Art Thou? is in!
+ Shaun of the Dead is already in the tournament
- Edgar Wright is a respected director, does anyone actually think The Hangover makes it past Round 1?
= Thank you, try again!
Last edited by Idioteque Stalker; 08-10-2021 at 06:14 PM.
Fuckin' Sophie's Choice over here.
[]
Last edited by quido8_5; 08-06-2021 at 05:48 PM.
Stuff I've Watched out of *****
The Last Duel - ***
Only Murders in the Building: **
Squid Games: **.5
Posting Permissions
forum
Reply With Quote
