January 02, 2013
— Ace So I've been waiting for Looper to be available on DVD. I finally saw it last night.
Very very meh. And it got such great reviews.
What I liked about the movie was that it tried to be a "real movie" science fiction movie. By "real movie," I mean it wasn't just a carnival attraction, a Universal Studios Theme Park ride without the actual ride part. 95% of movie science fiction is just that -- they dial up the comedy, action, and fantasy levels so high that the movie winds up being completely artificial. A funhouse attraction -- fun, maybe, if done well, but no one mistakes a funhouse for a genuine experience. Everything in it is designed to activate one of most primal and childlike responses -- laugh, cringe, say "Whoa."
Looper tries to be more like a real movie. I'm 99.9% sure Rian Johnson had in mind his own type of Philip K. Dick story. One thing Philip K. Dick does (I think) is casually introduce some crazy premise and just say: This is how it is. He doesn't defend it, he doesn't argue about it. It's just this way, okay? Accept it or don't.
Looper does that with both its time-travel premise (which is rickety and crazy enough-- in the future, they send people back in time to be executed? Really?) and the early introduction of a completely unrelated sci-fantasy premise, that in the future, about 10% of the population is telekinetic, but only comically so, able to levitate light coins and perform other useless tricks.
Well, as in Philip K. Dick, whether or not you buy these wacky premises determines whether you can enjoy the story. I didn't buy into either.
But the movie displeased me in other ways. I don't mind a little creative pilfering, but Looper swipes major and minor premises from other time-travel movies, including The Terminator and 12 Monkeys and the very underrated, very twisty time-travel movie Frequency.
And Bruce Willis, of course, was in 12 Monkeys.
It also borrows from a famous Twilight Zone episode and a major ongoing movie franchise which I won't mention because I don't want to spoil things. But major elements of the middle and ending were already done, almost exactly the same way, in a big well-regarded science-fantasy movie that everyone's already seen.
It's not a rule that the hero must be likable, but when you've written an unlikable hero, you're certainly increasing the difficulty factor for yourself. If the hero doesn't make for a strong rooting interest, you have to make sure everything else is so compelling that the viewer is still interested despite not liking the hero. For me, it wasn't.
And although the movie tries to be a "real movie," with real people, real drama, and genuine realness, it wasn't ever real for me, so I found the efforts to treat this material seriously... misplaced. Its tone of gritty "realness" seemed unearned to me, because it just wasn't real.
It reminded me of how Monk used to be written. There were three elements designed to draw the audience in Monk-- Comedy, Cleverness of mystery or its solution, and emotional stuff/mythology stuff about Monk's enduring love of his wife and her unsolved murder. Now, most good episodes had two of these elements, but not all three; poor episodes had only one, or none at all.
It was a frequent occurrence on Monk that the mystery element was either not terribly clever or else highly derivative, swiped from Agatha Cristie or Columbo. So, you'd seen it -- possibly four or five times before. And when this happened, I think -- when the mystery of an episode was pretty weak, and they had no good comedy bits to make up for it-- the showrunners would say "Put something with Trudy in here, pull some heartstrings. We need something more here; the script won't stand on its own as it is. Let's make Monk remember the first day he met Trudy in flashback. Wait, we've done the first meeting? Okay, let's make it... the first time he took her to the Museum of Vacuums and Cleaning Supplies. Have we done the Vacuum Museum yet?"
And while some of the emotional bits with Trudy were touching, other times they felt like filler or like replays of things we'd seen before. When these didn't work, they didn't feel organic or real. They felt like a cheap attempt at compensation-- when you haven't thought of anything clever to tickle the brain, go to the easy limbic-system play of trying to evoke sympathy.
That's the whole ending of Looper for me-- Johnson failed to come up with something both clever and new (as I said, the clever bits were not new, but pretty well-done in 12 Monkeys), so he tried for the cheap emotional stuff, and to me it felt forced. It was all kind of silly, like Monk, and silly's best form is "Clever." Not profound or moving. "Merely clever" could have worked -- a bloop single that gets you on base. But the film has trouble hitting that single, so it hacks for an emotional home run, or at least a "deep" one, and flies out.
I just don't know if a movie with this goofy a premise can try for deep or moving. Though I guess Source Code managed it, somewhat.
I was disappointed in the movie and looked up its Wikipedia entry to see if I'd missed anything, and there I saw a reference to Primer, a movie commenters keep talking about which I'd never seen. So I rented it. I don't know how I feel about it -- I feel like I definitely have missed something, and won't know whether I like it or not until I understand exactly what the heck happened in the film. Not only is the time-travel in this film particularly twisty and complicated, but the film deliberately makes it more difficult to understand by never having a character clearly explain the rules or implications of how time-travel works; it's all "explained" obliquely and by very subtle and vague inference. A critic wrote you'd have to see it two or three times to even almost understand what's going on, and that (for me at least) has turned out to be correct.
The whole movie was shot for $7000. Seven thousand. Almost all the money just went to film stock, and they were on such a tight budget they could only afford two takes per scene. The filmmaker was apparently entirely self-taught and just decided he'd make a time-travel movie for $7000. That right there is pretty interesting.
I don't know yet if I can recommend it as an actual movie experience. It's definitely recommendable as an interesting experiment (if you go for interesting experiments). The guy made a movie for $7000 and it looks pretty decent (for $7000), and seems to have some thought put into it.
Maybe too much. I don't understand what the hell happened. But I guess that's something different for a movie, huh?
Posted by: Ace at
10:34 AM
| Comments (325)
Post contains 1180 words, total size 7 kb.
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 02, 2013 10:39 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: Klawnet at January 02, 2013 10:39 AM (ePxxX)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at January 02, 2013 10:39 AM (LDwc9)
You lost me on the middle/ending being stolen.
I mean I recognized that it was cribbed from several sources (I even leaned over and told my wife what I suspected would be the ending.) But I still enjoyed the ride (A solid B+ movie, I'm glad I saw it, I'm not sure I'll see it again.)
But there was a specific movie it was ripped from? Like it was a sorta crypto-remake? I missed that.
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 02, 2013 10:40 AM (4F5x1)
And just like Primer, it looks undecipherable too.
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 10:40 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 02, 2013 10:41 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: ace at January 02, 2013 10:41 AM (LCRYB)
I think Ace might be referring to "Frequency". There's a scene where one person changes the events from the past and the future person sees the new reality taking shape as it happens in real time.
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 10:42 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: ace at January 02, 2013 10:42 AM (LCRYB)
As for Looper... if the primary problem with it is that you have to accept the premise to have fun with the movie, I'll probably check it out. I don't typically have a problem accepting such premises (premii?).
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 02, 2013 10:43 AM (8y9MW)
A critic wrote you'd have to see it two or three times to even almost understand what's going on...
Exactly! Why?
Because it's an amatuerish film made by amateurs on the cheap who didn't know how to edit. Primer makes very little sense and has a rushed ending that adds to the confusion.
Posted by: soothsayer at January 02, 2013 10:43 AM (ptD6d)
I'd give it 2.5 out of 5 with the caveat of it being better than anything I've seen lately.
Posted by: © Sponge at January 02, 2013 10:43 AM (UK9cE)
Posted by: ace at January 02, 2013 10:43 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 02, 2013 10:44 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: Vic at January 02, 2013 10:45 AM (53z96)
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 02:39 PM (GQ8sn)
Did you ever see "Deja vu?" With Denzel Washington? I got through that movie and my wife went "what the hell just happened." It dawned on me that in addition to the crappy ass timetravel, there were unshowed timelines that you had to infer from events in the movie.
Yes that's right, if you trust wikipedia I think estimate is that he went back in time 4 times or some nonesense.
Posted by: tsrblke (Work) at January 02, 2013 10:45 AM (4F5x1)
If your novel has time travel in it, you have to project believable use of this time travel.
You don't get to use time travel to excuse more unreal stuff because "hey, time travel!".
Posted by: Kristophr at January 02, 2013 10:45 AM (wYVte)
Posted by: ace at January 02, 2013 10:45 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at January 02, 2013 10:46 AM (P7hip)
Yeah, the whole "watching future changes take place immediately" crap. That doesn't make sense as the future person wouldn't know of the other alternate future where the changes didn't take place. As far as the future person knows, things were always like that.
Did you ever watch the Christmas Carol Dr. Who special? The one where he and the Scrooge character get that superhawt opera singer out of the icebox? The whole episode is built upon instantaneous future changes from meddling with the past.
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 10:47 AM (GQ8sn)
I find this to be universally true. IIRC, Star Wars got 2 stars. One of the most profitable franchises in history, and the movie got 2 stars.
In fact, I tend to use critic reviews (well, not Ace reviews, because he seems to get the point: was it fun, was it worth my $15?) as inverse indicators. The better some "critic" thinks it is, the worse it probably is, and the reverse is also true.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 02, 2013 10:47 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: ace at January 02, 2013 10:47 AM (LCRYB)
I don't understand the need for the premise. I'd accept it, I guess, if it were needed for the plot. But it's not needed for the plot; it's just needed to make for a "Big" climax. but I've already seen all this stuff before. It's not that big.
Well they were trying to explain how the badguy came from nowhere and took over the mob in the future. Psy covers that.
But I suspsect the movie was intending for you to put several pieces together either before or at the same time as the main character was. (They dropped lots of hints throughout the movie for you to know what was going on. Like the reference to Rainmaker's "Iron Jaw.")
Posted by: tsrblke (Work) at January 02, 2013 10:47 AM (4F5x1)
I watched Looper over the weekend too. Wasn't that impressed. Then I went to AMC and watched all three of the Mad Max movies. The older I get, the more I enjoy the road warrior.
Posted by: Soona at January 02, 2013 10:48 AM (ki2Vw)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 10:48 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 02, 2013 10:48 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 02, 2013 10:48 AM (3JFLq)
Same here. If the "critics" like it I generally hate it.
Posted by: Vic at January 02, 2013 10:49 AM (53z96)
Posted by: AmishDude at January 02, 2013 10:49 AM (T0NGe)
Yes that's right, if you trust wikipedia I think estimate is that he went back in time 4 times or some nonesense.
Yes.
Four times? He only went back once, at the very end. Each time they tried to send something back, a blackout happened because of the power drain. The movie sort of hinted that the team only did that once or twice before.
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 10:49 AM (GQ8sn)
Incidentally, the comedy Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel is a lot better at the whole time travel thing than Primer, and it was half-cute, too.
Rent it if you can.
Posted by: soothsayer at January 02, 2013 10:49 AM (ptD6d)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 02, 2013 10:49 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 02, 2013 10:50 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: ace at January 02, 2013 10:50 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Jordan at January 02, 2013 10:50 AM (Hz1zc)
That assumes alternate timelines exist. Which may or may not be true. Since time travel is an unknown (and probably impossible), none of us are likely to know the answer to that.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 02, 2013 10:51 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Vic at January 02, 2013 10:51 AM (53z96)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 02, 2013 10:51 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: phillip fry at January 02, 2013 10:52 AM (Jsiw/)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 02, 2013 10:52 AM (VtjlW)
Chris Christie says the House Leadership and the Hamburglar are "Solely Responsible" for delaying the Sandy Aid Package. But mostly the House Leadership.
However, I still will don't count out the Hamburglar. That bill is so laden with pork it's the size of Chris Christie's trousers. A tempting target for the Hamburglar indeed (maybe there are a few extra Big Mac's in the pockets??).
Posted by: marcus at January 02, 2013 10:52 AM (GGCsk)
Posted by: ace at January 02, 2013 02:47 PM (LCRYB)
See that's why I wasn't a fan of the movie. I think they were trying to get at the idea that Time could be changed, but everything would have to align just right. Hence the 5 or so timelines to get it to work. (4 according to the graphic on Wikipedia.)
Seriously...graphic....needed to explain the movie.
Posted by: tsrblke (Work) at January 02, 2013 10:52 AM (4F5x1)
Posted by: beach viewer at January 02, 2013 10:52 AM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 10:52 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at January 02, 2013 10:53 AM (qkP36)
Posted by: polynikes at January 02, 2013 10:53 AM (m2CN7)
Seen in the theater, the future scenes were well done. You never seem to be swayed by the visuals, Ace. But they are important to me. I like to be entertained visually, and that's why I see most movies in the theater.
Anyhoo.. the story was meh plus 2.. interesting, but somewhat predictable ending. In all, though, I would recommend it for a couple hours of entertainment.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 02, 2013 10:53 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 02, 2013 10:53 AM (Hx5uv)
F that. Give me bewbs and explosions.
Much simple just to blow things up.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 02, 2013 10:53 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Eaton Cox is kind of a LIBNO at January 02, 2013 10:54 AM (q177U)
I'm just saying...
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 02, 2013 10:54 AM (hc3eM)
There's a lot of the jargon stuff in that movie too. It took me a while to figure out what the kids were saying. Kind of like A Clockwork Orange, there's all sorts of new usage for words and I had a tough time trying to grasp what they were saying for the first half of the movie.
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 10:54 AM (GQ8sn)
"oh yeah. True.
In "Frequency" they cover that, though, or at least they claim a premise that covers that. They establish that you remember things "two different ways" for a while, after a timeline affecting you has been altered. Then, at some point, you catch up and remember it as it has (now) always been. "
Haven't seen Looper but I did like Frequency.
Posted by: WisRich at January 02, 2013 10:54 AM (hdpay)
Four times? He only went back once, at the very end. Each time they tried to send something back, a blackout happened because of the power drain. The movie sort of hinted that the team only did that once or twice before.
You're watching I think the 3rd iteration of that timeline. So he only goes back once in the movie, but it's described that he's already gone back at least one prior time and this timeline is the result of that.
Posted by: tsrblke (Work) at January 02, 2013 10:55 AM (4F5x1)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 02, 2013 10:55 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 02, 2013 10:55 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: red at January 02, 2013 10:55 AM (ymJbM)
Posted by: Carl forshage at January 02, 2013 10:56 AM (ECUKc)
Posted by: polynikes at January 02, 2013 10:56 AM (m2CN7)
Posted by: ace at January 02, 2013 10:56 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 10:57 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 02, 2013 10:57 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Cliff at January 02, 2013 10:57 AM (9yGfP)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 02, 2013 10:57 AM (4uh3z)
The takeaway is that the guy already did the time travelling before and is going through the motions to throw off his buddy. He steals the time machine in the very end and is constructing another one, much larger and powerful than the garage one they built first.
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 10:57 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 02, 2013 10:57 AM (l86i3)
Ace, as I'm relatively new here, is there a place on the site where one can read all of your past reviews? Tnx.
Posted by: eureka! at January 02, 2013 10:58 AM (HPRku)
Posted by: John at January 02, 2013 10:58 AM (S32Hg)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 74% more DOOM! at January 02, 2013 10:58 AM (FsUAO)
Posted by: phillip fry at January 02, 2013 02:52 PM (Jsiw/)
---------------------------------------------
That's a theme that hasn't been used much in Hollywood and I've always wondered why. It's much more interesting, and certainly more "believable". It also correlates with contemporary theories of astrophysics.
I like Sliders until it became apparent that perhaps there are infinite universes with basically the same story.
Posted by: Soona at January 02, 2013 10:59 AM (ki2Vw)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 02, 2013 10:59 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 10:59 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: ace at January 02, 2013 10:59 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: yankeefifth at January 02, 2013 10:59 AM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: Vic at January 02, 2013 10:59 AM (53z96)
And we're wasting valuable minutes discussing entertainment frippery when we should be out fighting the Second American Revolution. *snork*
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 02, 2013 10:59 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 02, 2013 10:59 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at January 02, 2013 11:00 AM (qkP36)
Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 02, 2013 11:00 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:00 AM (TCGmg)
Really? I totally missed that. Where did they insinuate this was the second or third instance?
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 11:01 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 02, 2013 11:01 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Vic at January 02, 2013 02:49 PM (53z96)
Well, they're gushing over MATT DAMON's new movie, so I'm agreeing with you 100%.
Posted by: © Sponge at January 02, 2013 11:01 AM (UK9cE)
Each episode is 30 minutes long including commercials. Each episode is also 29 minutes of posturing and talking, and less than 1 minute of actual combat.
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 11:02 AM (GQ8sn)
IE if you HAVE to watch the movie a few times to "get" it, something is fundamentally wrong. I simply never had the time to do it. Why would I want to go back and watch this basically unfinished movie a second time, when I have other ones that ARE finished that I haven't seen? Its not that rewarding.
In general, I think you're probably asking too much of a sci-fi time-travel movie to really "make sense" since time travel itself doesn't really "make sense". The most you can ask for is an engaging story and internal consistency.
And boobs.
Posted by: looking closely at January 02, 2013 11:02 AM (PwGfd)
This is particularly true of Phil Dick's stuff which is usually mangled beyond recognition.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 02, 2013 11:02 AM (hc3eM)
Suckass? And what favors might there be? I was hughly series. I like the reviews although they are too short.
Posted by: eureka! at January 02, 2013 11:02 AM (HPRku)
Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 02, 2013 11:03 AM (QxSug)
12 Monkeys suffers from the same problem almost any time travel movie suffers from and as a result it kills much of its clever plot devices. That is poor understanding of time paradox, and not sufficiently dealing with it.
Time paradox takes two general forms. The first is easy peasy to spot. Negation paradox. Wherein time travel changes events that impact the original trip in time. Nullification paradox. Where the trip nullifies itself or even the need for itself in some way.
For instance in Deja Vu Washington's characters prevention of the disaster nullifies his characters need to travel in time. Hence nullification paradox.
The other paradox is origination paradox. It is far more subtle. Nothing can originate in a time loop. Nothing, not even an idea can be stuck in a time loop. In the 12 monkeys, the voice mail tape is being examined in the future because it has information relating to the virus. This is told to Bruce's character, who subsequently leaves messages on that machine relating to the 12 monkeys. In this way it becomes like the watch in somewhere in time. It appears in a time loop passed back and forth in time forever with no origination, no maker. This is why my future self doesn't travel back in time and hand me plans for a time machine and a billion dollars. This type of paradox is the one most commonly mishandled in time travel plots. And any film attempting to be real science fiction that violates either paradox rule without explanation on how they get away with it is a FAIL and just fantasy writing.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 02, 2013 11:03 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:03 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: ace at January 02, 2013 11:03 AM (LCRYB)
I only read this part of the way through, I hope you don't mind.
The problem is, I think, they're not really making these movies for us anymore. It's for the Low Information Viewer (see what I did there?), who doesn't know how much has been ripped off from better, previous films.
You reach a point where it's all been done because it has.
I watched Ted, recently. The one where Marky Mark has a teddy bear. It was just like every other movie about slacker buddies who must grow up because the hot chick demands it. Yawn...
Posted by: BurtTC at January 02, 2013 11:03 AM (TOk1P)
I kinda-sorta liked Primer too, though I thought it was unnecessarily obtuse. Unless that was the point.
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 02, 2013 11:04 AM (S/WR4)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 02, 2013 11:04 AM (4uh3z)
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 03:01 PM (GQ8sn)
For starters when he arrives at the house the first time (when the women is dead and he's investigating) he finds the "You can save her" message. (Which he then leaves after time traveling, but changes his mind and takes her with him.)
Basically you'll notice as he's investigating you'll notice that he comes across many of the things he'll do later in the movie, just slightly different. (Wikipedia can explain it beter than I can.)
Posted by: tsrblke (Work) at January 02, 2013 11:04 AM (4F5x1)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 02, 2013 11:04 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: beach viewer at January 02, 2013 11:05 AM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 02, 2013 11:05 AM (QxSug)
---
Speaking of which I watched Midnight in Paris over the weekend because my daughter is going to France next summer and I wanted her to see some landmarks. It's a Woody Allen unfunny comedy about time travel.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 02, 2013 11:05 AM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:06 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: RWC at January 02, 2013 11:06 AM (fWAjv)
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 02, 2013 11:07 AM (hc3eM)
Posted by: Jean Claud Van Damme [/i] at January 02, 2013 11:07 AM (O7Q1u)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:07 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: Javems at January 02, 2013 11:07 AM (nTgAI)
I liked how the Time Machine movie (in the early 2000s) directly addressed this when the hero asks "Why can't I save her?" and the super bad guy basically says (it may even be a quote), "Because if you'd saved her, you never would have built the machine."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 02, 2013 11:07 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: cajun carrot at January 02, 2013 11:07 AM (UZQM8)
Posted by: katya the designated driver at January 02, 2013 11:08 AM (DoZD+)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 02, 2013 11:08 AM (YcNMX)
Posted by: Jean Claud Van Damme [/i] at January 02, 2013 11:08 AM (O7Q1u)
Cause it wasn't as good as Bill and Ted 2?
Personally, I'm looking forward to the Hebrew Hammer vs Hitler, as the "ultimate" crossover Jewsploitation-Time travel film, but it remains to be seen if that one even gets made.
http://tinyurl.com/create.php?url=about%3Ablank
Posted by: looking closely at January 02, 2013 11:08 AM (PwGfd)
Each episode is 30 minutes long including commercials. Each episode is also 29 minutes of posturing and talking, and less than 1 minute of actual combat.
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 03:02 PM (GQ8sn)
Check out Dragonball Kai. Toei went back and re-cut DBZ to remove all the filler bullshit and 20 minute long power-up scenes to actually present the story the way it was in the manga, plus they remastered it for HD. Good stuff. Unfortunately, they ended with the Cell saga, though the whole series was condensed to like less than 100 episodes, whereas the original was well past 200 by that point.
Posted by: mugiwara at January 02, 2013 11:09 AM (W7ffl)
Posted by: BurtTC at January 02, 2013 03:03 PM (TOk1P)
This is it. Movies nowadays are made for idiots. I see this problem less with Foreign movies than I do with American movies.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 02, 2013 11:09 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:10 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 02, 2013 11:10 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:10 AM (TCGmg)
---
I think part of the reason for this is that Dick generally dealt with average people doing average things as opposed to princesses of Mars saving the world from Ming the Merciless. Hollywood takes these Joe Sixpack characters and turns them into Hollywood extravaganza. It just doesn't work.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 02, 2013 11:10 AM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 02, 2013 11:10 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: navybrat at January 02, 2013 11:10 AM (BzGtc)
Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 02, 2013 11:11 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 02, 2013 11:12 AM (4uh3z)
Bruce has been phoning in his acting appearances for at least the last decade.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 02, 2013 11:12 AM (8y9MW)
---
And by idiots.
---
I see this problem less with Foreign movies than I do with American movies.
---
It's the Zeitgeist.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 02, 2013 11:12 AM (Hx5uv)
Great visuals. Horrible story. And bad acting. So a bad movie.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:12 AM (TCGmg)
You're right, it's been done. Prince of Darkness, John Carpenter horror movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093777/
Posted by: Jay in Ames at January 02, 2013 11:12 AM (i2Lsf)
Posted by: ace at January 02, 2013 11:12 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 02, 2013 11:13 AM (GFM2b)
In a theater? "Lawrence of Arabia."
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 02, 2013 11:13 AM (ZKzrr)
I just read the wiki and it doesn't say anything about him going back 2 or 3 times. He only goes back once, at the end to save the ferry passengers. He does send a note back in time earlier in the film, though.
I noticed the message on the fridge when I saw the movie the first time, and then later realized that he had set it up in the future when he does go back in time to leave a message to himself. I always chalked that up to a time paradox, meaning him travelling back had already happened and was a done deal.
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 11:13 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Libtardo at January 02, 2013 11:13 AM (kmLUz)
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 02, 2013 03:02 PM (hc3eM)
My wife insists "A Scanner Darkly" is a really good portrayal of the book.
PKD never ends a story though (it's always open ended) which I think is not pleasent from a Hollywood Standpoint (and frankly, I'm not a fan of it in general personally.) which leads to some mangling.
Posted by: tsrblke (Work) at January 02, 2013 11:13 AM (4F5x1)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:13 AM (TCGmg)
I will be watching it.
Posted by: eleven at January 02, 2013 11:13 AM (KXm42)
Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 02, 2013 11:14 AM (QxSug)
Also looked like Bruce phoned in his parts.
Bruce Willis has been awful, lately. The last time he 'acted' was in Tears of the Sun.
Posted by: soothsayer at January 02, 2013 11:14 AM (ptD6d)
Posted by: DaveinNC at January 02, 2013 11:14 AM (boNGU)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:15 AM (TCGmg)
The movie sounds like it is somewhat based on the short-story by Phillip K Dick called "The Skull".
Posted by: perdogg at January 02, 2013 11:15 AM (oSdsj)
Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 02, 2013 11:15 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Vic at January 02, 2013 11:15 AM (53z96)
I think it's being done because of the international market. Anything subtle may be lost in translation so if it's to be translated into 40 languages, keep it simple.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 02, 2013 11:16 AM (T0NGe)
I was amused at how the new Total Recall was worse than the old Total Recall, in terms of special effects, story, action, resolution, deep thoughts, etc.
Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 02, 2013 03:11 PM (QxSug)
Many of them are so busy pushing Propaganda that they overlook the obvious. People have pointed out that any civilization capable of Star Travel can nuke the Avatar indigents into vapors and then take the unobtanium.
I have always said that we should not be taking advice from people who play "make believe" for a living.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 02, 2013 11:16 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: beach viewer at January 02, 2013 11:16 AM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Wily Wrepublican Wench at January 02, 2013 11:16 AM (kXoT0)
speaking of Monk...
he's in a new movie coming out in April with The Rock and Mark Wahlberg directed by Michael Bay.
judging by the trailer, the movie and characters are totally absurd, and I think it might be pretty good
Posted by: soothsayer at January 02, 2013 11:17 AM (ptD6d)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:17 AM (TCGmg)
Every .Single. Interestesting. Thing... happened off camera.
Posted by: eleven at January 02, 2013 11:17 AM (KXm42)
Boehner is a pussy
Christie is dead to me.
Carry on.
Posted by: dananjcon at January 02, 2013 11:17 AM (jvd3N)
Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 02, 2013 11:17 AM (QxSug)
Brilliantly-executed film. Every Chekhov's gun goes off perfectly.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 02, 2013 11:18 AM (T0NGe)
I find it amusing that people agonize over "the rules" for time travel to the past. Because it's impossible.
It's not a question of technology or paradoxes. It will not and can not be done. Ever. It's like arguing over unicorn mating rituals or what Santa's flying reindeer would taste like.
And yes, I'm being a pedantic killjoy curmudgeon. I know.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 02, 2013 11:18 AM (SY2Kh)
If there's a SciFi premise I have trouble accepting, it's telepathy. Not that I don't think it could exist, but that it's almost impossible to do correctly even in literary format, forget doing it in movies.
The closest any move I've seen has gotten to doing telepathy "correctly" is the first X-Men movie, and even that only did it as a one-time trick (to introduce Prof. X) and didn't play with it at all.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 02, 2013 11:18 AM (8y9MW)
---
I read some time ago that they were making a Mr. Peabody movie but I have heard anything since.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 02, 2013 11:18 AM (Hx5uv)
@EC
In Wikipedia, Section 4 "Implied Timelines" has a graphic with all 4 implied timelines. You'll notice in Timeline 2, Doug (Washington) goes back into timeline 3 screws everything up, creating Timeline 4 (which is the one you see in the movie.)
What's not really covered though is his going back into the movie creates a Timeline 5 (of course that's the end of the movie.)
Posted by: tsrblke (Work) at January 02, 2013 11:18 AM (4F5x1)
Posted by: Vizzini [/i] at January 02, 2013 11:19 AM (O7Q1u)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:19 AM (TCGmg)
. . . what was the last movie you saw that was not "meh"?
1984 - This Is Spinal Tap. In the theater.
The guy in Scanners blow'd up real good!
Posted by: Count de Monet at January 02, 2013 11:19 AM (BAS5M)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 02, 2013 11:19 AM (4uh3z)
Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 02, 2013 11:20 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: 29Victor at January 02, 2013 11:21 AM (ES9R7)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 03:17 PM (TCGmg)
The only good thing in that movie was Mary Steenburgen. She almost made the movie watchable. And wasn't that Malcome McDowel?
Posted by: Vic at January 02, 2013 11:21 AM (53z96)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at January 02, 2013 11:21 AM (P7hip)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:22 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: naturalfake at January 02, 2013 11:22 AM (UgFxe)
What do you mean "nowadays"?
If you're targeting a movie for people with IQs over 125, you've just eliminated 94% of your potential audience. If you want to potentially capture 94% of the public, your target audience IQ is 75.
Damn bell curves!
I'd almost argue that if you're paying $15 just to go to a theater to see a movie you might want to question your position on said bell curve, but that aside, this largely explains the "stupid factor" prevalent in mass entertainment.
The bigger the budget, the bigger your needed return, meaning the bigger your target audience has to be. This is why blockbuster movies are invariably big, loud, dumb, and formulaic.
Posted by: looking closely at January 02, 2013 11:22 AM (PwGfd)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 02, 2013 11:22 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Vizzini at January 02, 2013 03:19 PM (O7Q1u)
I thought that was the best of the Star Trek movies. Especially the wet t-shirt scene at the end.
Posted by: Vic at January 02, 2013 11:22 AM (53z96)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:23 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 02, 2013 11:23 AM (GFM2b)
I ran a publishing empire you could buy for a dollar and I still couldn't get anyone to read Newsweek...
Posted by: Tina Brown at January 02, 2013 11:23 AM (QKKT0)
PKD never ends a story though (it's always open ended) which I think is not pleasent from a Hollywood Standpoint (and frankly, I'm not a fan of it in general personally.) which leads to some mangling.
Posted by: tsrblke (Work) at January 02, 2013 03:13 PM (4F5x1)
I've owned the book "A Scanner Darkly" for decades, but never bothered to read it. I genuinely never liked any Phillip K Dick stories/books I had read in the past. After seeing the movie "A Scanner Darkly" (which I regard as excellent, by the way) I decided to read the book. The movie is very close to the book, and after reading it, unlike other Phillip K Dick stories which I have read ("Confessions of a Crap artist", and "the Zap gun") I actually liked it.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 02, 2013 11:23 AM (bb5+k)
Dr. Zhivago was a boring story about being around an interesting story without really being part of it.
Compare to Ben Hur which is an interesting story about being around an epic story without really being part of it.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 02, 2013 11:24 AM (0q2P7)
Final Countdown wasn't bad as a time travel pic. Sending aircraft carriers through time gets my attention.
Posted by: WisRich at January 02, 2013 11:24 AM (hdpay)
Posted by: Your Moron pal, Truman North at January 02, 2013 11:25 AM (I2LwF)
Want something intellectual? Then do something interactive.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 02, 2013 11:25 AM (T0NGe)
I should know. I'll testify anywhere any time to those facts.
Just bring me some aspirin.
Posted by: Zombie Vince Foster at January 02, 2013 11:25 AM (wR+pz)
Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 02, 2013 03:14 PM (QxSug)
-------------------------------------------------------
I never could understand why the mother, while pregnant, and knowing what she learned in the first movie, just pack up and move to Costa Rica.
Posted by: Soona at January 02, 2013 11:25 AM (ki2Vw)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at January 02, 2013 11:25 AM (qkP36)
You should check me out sometime.
Posted by: The old testament at January 02, 2013 11:26 AM (PwGfd)
I agree with you on the Hunger Games. As for Harry Potter, remember that the target audience got one (and a couple of times two) year(s) older with each book. The TA was still the original 11 year olds who read the original book when it first came out.
That means they were 16 (IIRC) by the time book 5 came out, and 18 by the time book 7 came out. They were "Young Adult" because that's how the book sellers labelled the entire series.
In fairness, I can't think of another series that grew with its audience (in age and theoretical maturity) as closely as HP, so it would be hard to classify it.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 02, 2013 11:26 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: RWC at January 02, 2013 11:26 AM (fWAjv)
Posted by: Anna Puma at January 02, 2013 03:17 PM (TCGmg)
While we're on the subject of time travel movies, have you seen "Somewhere in Time" starring Christopher Reeve? I loved it. It was very poignant.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 02, 2013 11:27 AM (bb5+k)
Halo is interactive.
Il Trovatore is not.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 02, 2013 11:28 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 02, 2013 11:28 AM (3JFLq)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 02, 2013 11:28 AM (4uh3z)
Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 02, 2013 11:28 AM (QxSug)
Being in a theatre was the only way I could watch that movie or Lawrence. So bloody long and the visuals on even my 40in screen were reduced to being miniscule. Zhivago is all about a guy who just wants a normal life but events kidnaps him. So he and those around him suffer for it.Do not get me gushing about Ben-Hur, love that movie heaps!
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:29 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 02, 2013 11:29 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 02, 2013 11:29 AM (3JFLq)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 02, 2013 11:30 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 02, 2013 03:26 PM (8y9MW)
----------------------------------------------
And the author was brilliant in doing it that way too. Just five books and a very very luxurious retirement.
Posted by: Soona at January 02, 2013 11:30 AM (ki2Vw)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at January 02, 2013 11:31 AM (qkP36)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 02, 2013 11:31 AM (GFM2b)
"Daddy, do you think I would make a good tribute?"
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 11:32 AM (GQ8sn)
http://tinyurl.com/69wzof
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:33 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 02, 2013 11:33 AM (tkoGU)
Posted by: RWC at January 02, 2013 11:33 AM (fWAjv)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 03:29 PM (TCGmg)
----------------------------------------------------
Saw that as a kid when it first came out on a three screen wrap-around picture. Fucking awesome movie.
Posted by: Soona at January 02, 2013 11:33 AM (ki2Vw)
Posted by: John Titor at January 02, 2013 11:34 AM (xKC/c)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 02, 2013 11:34 AM (+lsX1)
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at January 02, 2013 11:35 AM (BIJKO)
Looper worked for me for some reason. I like the downplayed future setting; that's just something I like seeing validated in flicks rather than the showcase, "Hey, Looook! A flying car!!!" version of the future in other 'sci-fi' movies.
The telekinetic baddy didn't bother me and I do see what you are saying about it not being necessary. I think the idea was the answer to the question, "How would you stop a mafia that had the power of time travel?" Seemingly impossible without some other extraordinary answer.
The only minor problem with the plot is that Willis' character would have begun to remember what the protagonist was doing before the conclusion, I think.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 02, 2013 11:35 AM (KDq5l)
addy, do you think I would make a good tribute?"::
No, more like, "Who would be so sick as to watch people kill each other for fun?"
"The Romans." Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 02, 2013 11:35 AM (4uh3z)
Interesting. I'm thinking of a society built around such technology.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 02, 2013 11:35 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:36 AM (TCGmg)
I'd almost argue that if you're paying $15 just to go to a theater to see a movie you might want to question your position on said bell curve, but that aside, this largely explains the "stupid factor" prevalent in mass entertainment.
Posted by: looking closely at January 02, 2013 03:22 PM (PwGfd)
For years I have been getting in for free. I am no longer able to do that, but nowadays when I do have to pay, I average $1.50/person. I regard it as my civic duty to deprive Hollywood of as much money as I am able. In any case, to address your point, I would argue that people nowadays are quite a bit stupider than they were decades ago. The Older Generation was much more commonsensical than what we have now. They had no choice.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 02, 2013 11:36 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Fresh at January 02, 2013 11:36 AM (O7ksG)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 02, 2013 11:37 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: ace at January 02, 2013 11:37 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:38 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: ace at January 02, 2013 11:38 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at January 02, 2013 11:38 AM (qkP36)
>>>Has anyone seen Safety Not Guaranteed? That looks like a great take on the whole time travel thing. --ATC
I thought it was hilarious.
Posted by: Dr Spank at January 02, 2013 11:38 AM (4cRnj)
Want something intellectual? Then do something interactive.
Pretty sure the style book says you can't use "intelligent" and "intellectual" as synonyms, because they're not.
I get where you're going with this, but lots of interactive entertainment is not particularly intelligent, either. Bar dice down at the corner watering hole...interactive, interpersonal, not particularly intellectual even in a college town. If you're trying to stretch your brain, you're probably better off home alone reading Ben Hur.
Idiocracy is probably the most realistic of all time travel movies.
We're gonna take you back, to the year 1939 when Charlie Chaplin and his Nazi regime enslaved Europe and tried to take over the world...
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 02, 2013 11:39 AM (ZKzrr)
I come here for the Horde.
And didn't you once comment that someone should write something that was a post you had already written?!
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 02, 2013 11:40 AM (4F5x1)
No, more like, "Who would be so sick as to watch people kill each other for fun?"
"The Romans."
Reality TV execs would soooo do that today if it were legal.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 02, 2013 11:40 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: ace at January 02, 2013 03:37 PM (LCRYB)
--------------------------------------------
Ah, c'mon. I read most of it.
Posted by: Soona at January 02, 2013 11:41 AM (ki2Vw)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:41 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at January 02, 2013 11:41 AM (jucos)
Posted by: ace at January 02, 2013 03:37 PM (LCRYB)
A famous man once said he only reads the comments.
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 11:42 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Mike the Moose is Shrugging at January 02, 2013 03:29 PM (0q2P7)
Not getting your point.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 02, 2013 11:42 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Mike Hunt at January 02, 2013 11:42 AM (G6kli)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at January 02, 2013 11:43 AM (qkP36)
Posted by: naturalfake at January 02, 2013 11:43 AM (UgFxe)
Posted by: Thorvald at January 02, 2013 11:43 AM (1V6Pv)
Scotty, "Who's to say he didn't invent it?"
Two time paradoxes mentioned in Star Trek IV.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:43 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: negentropy at January 02, 2013 11:44 AM (27KAF)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 02, 2013 11:44 AM (4uh3z)
Or: Multiple timelines. (i.e. the recollection we saw was a different timeline than the movie we were actually in.)
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 02, 2013 11:44 AM (4F5x1)
Posted by: Mike Hunt at January 02, 2013 11:45 AM (G6kli)
Posted by: Future Guy at January 02, 2013 11:46 AM (3ZtZW)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at January 02, 2013 11:46 AM (qkP36)
thatisall.
Posted by: tangonine at January 02, 2013 11:46 AM (x3YFz)
Posted by: naturalfake at January 02, 2013 11:46 AM (UgFxe)
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18949/18949-h/18949-h.htm
Union thugs and nuclear power make a bad mix.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:46 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 03:41 PM (TCGmg)
---------------------------------------------
I never could get past the contridiction onto itself when the "mysterious" limosine showed up at the beginning of the movie. It all would have worked much better for me if they had left that out until it showed up at the end of the movie.
Posted by: Soona at January 02, 2013 11:47 AM (ki2Vw)
Posted by: Thorvald at January 02, 2013 11:50 AM (1V6Pv)
The watch is handed to Richard by Elise, who then goes back in time to hand the same watch back to Elise who carries it forward in time and hands it to Richard who then travels back in time...
It's called bootstrap, ontological, or origination paradox.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 02, 2013 11:51 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: naturalfake at January 02, 2013 11:51 AM (UgFxe)
Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at January 02, 2013 11:52 AM (pmsMR)
I think the author of that short story got his script optioned and they may be working a screenplay.
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 11:52 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 02, 2013 11:52 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:52 AM (TCGmg)
Be sure to set aside several hours to watch Primer at least 2 or 3 times before you finally understand what the hell is going on.
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 11:54 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:54 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 02, 2013 11:55 AM (VtjlW)
it's official -- no one reads the blog.
Posted by: ace at January 02, 2013 03:37 PM (LCRYB)
Least of all, the blog proprietor.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at January 02, 2013 11:55 AM (TIIx5)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:55 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: Mike Hunt at January 02, 2013 11:55 AM (G6kli)
The way to AnnaPuma's heart I have found, is to have a deep conversation about anime and WWII trivia.
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 11:56 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Sjg at January 02, 2013 11:56 AM (yYvCT)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:57 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: Soona at January 02, 2013 11:57 AM (ki2Vw)
Watched The Hedgehog (2009) / Le hérisson (original title) recently, too.
Classic french movie. Slicing out a piece (sliver) of one's (typical) human life and delivering it large, exaggerated and honestly on the screen.
Poignant.
Posted by: beach viewer at January 02, 2013 03:05 PM (LpQbZ)
They made a Ron Jeremy biopic?
Posted by: galloglass at January 02, 2013 11:57 AM (WVIkK)
#270
Yep, Rome Sweet Rome. Currently in development.
I like Primer, by the way. It was different, and at least tried to take a more thoughful approach to time travel.
Posted by: brak at January 02, 2013 11:57 AM (iEoiA)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 02, 2013 11:58 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 11:59 AM (TCGmg)
Posted by: Mike Hunt at January 02, 2013 12:00 PM (G6kli)
Posted by: Thorvald at January 02, 2013 12:00 PM (1V6Pv)
Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at January 02, 2013 03:52 PM (pmsMR)
We got that, me and the missus, as we watched it. We were good up till halfway through the farm. Then you get the idea they just needed it to end to fill the run time requirement and it ended oh so 1) melodramatically and 2) cheap.
First half was well done, second half showed nothing. Saw everything coming a mile away.
Posted by: tangonine at January 02, 2013 12:00 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 12:01 PM (TCGmg)
Posted by: Mike Hunt at January 02, 2013 12:04 PM (G6kli)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 03:52 PM (TCGmg)
-----------------------------------------
I don't like closed loops. That's one of the reasons that Looper kind of fell flat for me. I don't think entities from different times can share the same reality.
Posted by: Soona at January 02, 2013 12:04 PM (ki2Vw)
Pom Poko, why energy drinks became a craze in Japan.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 12:05 PM (TCGmg)
Posted by: Mike Hunt at January 02, 2013 12:06 PM (G6kli)
That's how Jean Claude Van Damme killed the villain in Timecop. The same matter can't occupy the same space at the same time! He throws the evil future Senator into the past Senator and makes him all melty and gooey.
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 12:06 PM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 12:07 PM (TCGmg)
Posted by: Mike Hunt at January 02, 2013 12:09 PM (G6kli)
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 04:06 PM (GQ8sn)
----------------------------------------------
I just have a feeling that if I'd travel back in time and be young again, I'd make the same stupid fucking mistakes I made the first time.
Posted by: Soona at January 02, 2013 12:10 PM (ki2Vw)
Posted by: Thorvald at January 02, 2013 12:11 PM (1V6Pv)
Posted by: Mike Hunt at January 02, 2013 12:13 PM (G6kli)
Posted by: Mike Hunt at January 02, 2013 12:15 PM (G6kli)
"Hmmm...I wonder if I can feel up Mary Jane in the projector room again?"
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 12:15 PM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 04:07 PM (TCGmg)
---------------------------------------------
I think, once again, Stephen King treated time travel like I would imagine it in a recent novel "November 1962" (???). Where events will become more resistant to change as to the change's importance to overall history.
The grander the change, the more cataclysmic the historical results.
Posted by: Soona at January 02, 2013 12:17 PM (ki2Vw)
Dr Who does this.
He explains that certain events in the universe cannot be changed and are fixed points in time. Certain people are destined to die a certain way, and no amount of time-traveling can alter their fates.
Posted by: EC at January 02, 2013 12:20 PM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Al at January 02, 2013 12:36 PM (V70Uh)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 12:38 PM (TCGmg)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 12:40 PM (TCGmg)
Posted by: Al at January 02, 2013 12:41 PM (V70Uh)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 02, 2013 12:42 PM (3JFLq)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 12:43 PM (TCGmg)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 02, 2013 12:43 PM (3JFLq)
Triangle - a horror movie wherein there is a time loop and
Timecrimes (spanish movie) - which has similar issues to Looper and Primus in terms of running into yourself.
I liked Looper for what it was, a decent, not great sci fi movie. Better than many sci-fi movies that come out, but not memorable and with too many plot holes. Yes, all sci-fi is going to have plot holes, particularly when dealing with time travel - so you have to be willing to overlook those in order to enjoy.
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
Biggest plot hole for me? Once young joe learns old joe's motivation for coming back and killing the kid - he could just deliberately decide to not ever get married, not get in any serious relationships. Once that was decided, assuming that he was serious, Old Joe should disappear. He never got married, never settled down, and likely died in his future from drugs/violence. Also, Old Joe's appearance and actions alone would change young joe making it unlikely that young joe meets and falls in love with the same person old joe did. So - nullifaction.
2nd plot hole - organized crime is powerful enough to basically run the future and have time travel devices that nobody else has, but can't murder anyone b/c they can't hide the bodies? What about Old joe's wife that was murdered? they cover it up with fire, but so what?
The time travel itself wasn't my problem with this movie - it was the use of it that is absurd. If you are a criminal in 2077 and have access to time-travel (and can take things back with you), wouldn't you simply come back with a few books on all the sporting event outcomes for the next 30 years and make millions? Instead you waste it on dumping bodies?
The psi kid didn't bother me either. Yes - it is a rip off of many other such types in movies (X-Men, Carrie, etc). No big deal. Lots of good movies rip off other movies. However, the problem here is that the mother/son stay at the farm. Killer's coming to kill son. Therefore, you leave for a few weeks while young joe tries to kill old joe. You don't hang around and wait for him. That is more horror movie trope than anything else.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 02, 2013 12:55 PM (sOx93)
Posted by: Yip at January 02, 2013 01:00 PM (/jHWN)
Primer works just like it is, self-contained, first time through. "Time travel = briar patch. The end."
I kinda liked it. I don't kinda like many things.
Posted by: oblig. at January 02, 2013 01:16 PM (cePv8)
Primer requires some thought - yes it is convoluted, but it is supposed to be convoluted, that is partially the point. Similar to a movie like Memento. Granted, you will never have a huge audience for a movie with complex ideas that doesn't tie everything up neatly with a bow at the end.
In Primer, there are multiple copies of the same two individuals with different motivations interacting and you are never sure which copy you are watching. The idea behind Primer is that you can travel as far backward as the point the machine was turned on (assuming the machine is continuing to run). So, you have 3 or 4 of the same guy running around and even fighting himself b/c the "older" version knows things the younger version doesn't - while at the same time you have that guy versus his partner and/or different versions of his partner. then, in order to trick each other into not realizing it's a future version and trying not to change things, they do things like listen to tapes of conversations while conversations are going on in an effort to say the exact same thing in this version of the conversation that was originally said. It gets very confusing - but purposefully so. Adding to the confusion is that the 2 main characters are basically racing each other and their past selves, so they are going without sleep as they keep getting back in the machine to go back in time and try and fix a past mistake or prevent the other guy from doing something. So, person "a" version 4 has been without sleep for 72 hours, while person "a" version 2 has only been up 20 hours, etc.
It was an extremely well thought out, paced, and acted movie considering that it was a) a first time filmmaker and b) had a $7k budget. Was it perfect - no, but it was better than most major Hollywood movies and again, with no budget and a self-taught first time filmmaker. I would actually love to see a big budget version of Primer where it was cleaned up a little, but my guess is that a big budget version would ruin what makes it unique by over-simplifying everything for the audience.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 02, 2013 01:24 PM (sOx93)
Posted by: Ms. Jack at January 02, 2013 01:38 PM (q1kTP)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 02, 2013 04:43 PM (TCGmg)
I don't know that the math "allows" FTL, but more that if we can do FTL, we can violate casuality - ex: returning before you left.
There's some weirdness with certain particles, but we haven't figured out a way to transmit information past the speed of light, which is necessary to violate casuality. Maybe they'll figure that out in the future - but then why haven't they told us yet? = P
Time dilation definitely does allow time travel "to the future", but with ridiculous energy costs. Time travel to the past is doubtful (but not disproven!).
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at January 02, 2013 01:51 PM (FzhYM)
300+ Comments? oy! Alone in the crowd...
Primer was brilliant! A movie about time travel where they never once call it time travel. You like your movies spoon-fed to you? The ending wrapped up neatly with a pretty bow? Avoid Primer since you have to pay attention and THINK!
Hint: In Primer, the effect comes first, then the cause... they never tell you this of course, but he scribbles it on some paper in frustration.
PK Dick was a brilliant writer, his works are filled with genius! He takes the most amazing things and makes them... boring. Mundane. A telepathic Slime-Mold from Ganamyde is oozing under the door: the Hero's response? "Don't you people ever knock!" "I'm sorry sir, I lack the physical appendages to 'knock' on your door". (Lord Running Clam. Clans of the Alphane Moon.) Making Sci Fi seem ordinary = genius! And skillful too. News Clowns...
Posted by: 5Cats at January 02, 2013 02:05 PM (EbYrW)
Posted by: sdavis at January 02, 2013 02:13 PM (njVMI)
Posted by: ArrMatey at January 02, 2013 02:18 PM (Vf2XE)
Posted by: ace at January 02, 2013 03:21 PM (LCRYB)
I think it's a great example of how you don't really need to understand the specifics of a story to understand and feel the central conflict and drama of it. Another good example of this is the indie game Thirty Flights of Loving (http://store.steampowered.com/app/214700/). There's no spoken dialog, it only has about 20-30 minutes of content, but it is well reviewed (metacritic score of 89), it's sold on Steam, and everyone I know who has played it really enjoyed it. None of us have any idea what the story was, but we all enjoyed it.
Also, for people who have seen Primer once and expect they would understand the plot on their second viewing: No, you probably won't.
Posted by: some guy at January 02, 2013 03:52 PM (BCYnA)
If I watched it the way I watch most of Hollywood's crap I would have zoned out and not gotten anything, but Ace's review intrigued me so I glanced over the Wikipedia entry and then I followed closely. It starts off slow, but around 10-15 mins in, it takes off and stays interesting thereafter.
Posted by: Stan at January 02, 2013 04:08 PM (TzqhC)
Posted by: Primer! at January 02, 2013 05:22 PM (IGplW)
Disagree with the review wholeheartedly, Ace. Loved the movie and found it easy to follow along with. I watched it with my wife and we had to stop several times along the way to piece it together along the way, but didn't get lost.
Will have to pick up primer, thanks for the bonus review.
Posted by: ALittleEnglish at January 05, 2013 12:48 PM (L+mph)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3669 seconds, 453 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 02, 2013 10:36 AM (8y9MW)