Jex
Member
Look, no-one said that being wrong was easy!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Red Letter Media |OT| of Movies, Murderers, and Pizza Rolls
- Thread starter Skiptastic
- Start date
Look, no-one said that being wrong was easy!
Mr. B Natural
Member
Gotta disagree about RLM saying Nolan movies are about the emotional core of things. Inception was 50% exposition and 50% "isn't this trippy?" Characters were cardboard. The "main conflict" was, I think, one scene in the movie, maybe two. Batman, on the other hand, maybe has some emotional core to them, but they're mired in a soup of cool and bwaaaah and grittiness and bwwwaaah.
Nolan, to me, is a director that has his finger on the pulse of what makes 12 to 20 somethings "squee." I'll give him that, but his movies are more spectacle than actually things that earned their praise (emotionally or otherwise). I always find it funny when people say "Well, you don't like Nolan? Well, why don't you go see another stupid Michael Bay movie," because to me, those two directors have a lot in common. Sure, I'll take another Nolan movie over Bay any day, but they're both spectacle directors with no sense of humor in terms of their goofy subject matter and they both rely entirely on having the finger of the pulse of man-children everywhere and manipulate the audience accordingly. And oddly, every Bay movie, regardless of subject matter, plays out the same, looks the same, smells the same and the same goes for Nolan. Both are the best at pulling the audience's strings rather than they are getting more out of their actors, their script or films. They both take spectacle to extremes that make me roll my eyes. And, in both, people eat it up like candy.
The big difference to me is that Nolan could be making better, but less popular, movies that are as smart as they seem rather than seem to be smart but aren't, while Bay is just Bay and will always be Bay.
And for Nolan, at least lately, his "impact" has relied 90% on the music, not 60. Without the music, not only does his movies seem flat, but also less "epic," and I don't even want to try to calculate how much of his movies rely entirely on constant bloated "epicness" to warrant merit.
Nolan, to me, is a director that has his finger on the pulse of what makes 12 to 20 somethings "squee." I'll give him that, but his movies are more spectacle than actually things that earned their praise (emotionally or otherwise). I always find it funny when people say "Well, you don't like Nolan? Well, why don't you go see another stupid Michael Bay movie," because to me, those two directors have a lot in common. Sure, I'll take another Nolan movie over Bay any day, but they're both spectacle directors with no sense of humor in terms of their goofy subject matter and they both rely entirely on having the finger of the pulse of man-children everywhere and manipulate the audience accordingly. And oddly, every Bay movie, regardless of subject matter, plays out the same, looks the same, smells the same and the same goes for Nolan. Both are the best at pulling the audience's strings rather than they are getting more out of their actors, their script or films. They both take spectacle to extremes that make me roll my eyes. And, in both, people eat it up like candy.
The big difference to me is that Nolan could be making better, but less popular, movies that are as smart as they seem rather than seem to be smart but aren't, while Bay is just Bay and will always be Bay.
And for Nolan, at least lately, his "impact" has relied 90% on the music, not 60. Without the music, not only does his movies seem flat, but also less "epic," and I don't even want to try to calculate how much of his movies rely entirely on constant bloated "epicness" to warrant merit.
Skiptastic
Member
Funny, when I think of Christopher Nolan, I think of James Cameron before Titanic: skilled director who puts out big, crowd pleasing films that are enjoyable to watch every two or three years. So it was appropriate that they brought up T2 in this review.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
The difference is that back when Cameron was good, he had a much better sense for storytelling, action composition, and atmosphere. T2 is the greatest action movie of all time because it utilizes realistic and believable characterization within its wonky sci-fi premise. John Connor acts like a 13-year-old wannabe-cool-guy delinquent would act, which results in some finding him "annoying" but which is nevertheless an example of good characterization. Sarah Connor is drawn believably as a woman burdened by the knowledge that all the hope of the future rests on her and her son, and she has, understandably, mentally crumbled as a result. The T-1000 is a terrifying and effective villain because he is so regular-looking yet so deadly, which actually makes him an even better antagonist than Arnold in the first film. These are all the fundaments of storytelling that Nolan tends to miss when he gets too big of a budget or too wrapped up in his high-concept ideas. Aliens is more alike to a modern Nolan movie in that it tends not to focus too much on characterization outside of Ripley and Hicks (though neither is as well-drawn as any character in Alien, which is why it's the inferior film), but Cameron had a better sense for atmosphere and overall effect, while Nolan gets wrapped up in details (Inception) or in pretentious philosophical abstractions (most of the stuff involving The Joker in TDK, which endowed the Joker with the apparently infinite resources needed to develop a thousand different contingencies, or, say, rig two freighters with explosives that somehow nobody noticed when they were preparing them for the evacuations). Nolan's movies are therefore "cooler," I suppose, but they're much less satisfying as films and as works of art.
When was the last time you watched Inception? Mal (Mol? Maul?) and her effect on Cobb was all over the movie.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Neither Mal nor Cobb are well-developed characters, though, so their emotional gesticulating has nothing for the audience to latch onto. Leo's acting when Cotillard
is actually quite good (and I don't say that of Dicaprio very often), but I have no reason to give a shit about it. Their whole arc is the sci-fi equivalent of a soap opera, save that it has philosophical mumbo-jumbo about Mal confusing reality for a dream laid on top of it.
jumps off the building
I disagree but either way that doesn't change the fact that the part of his posted I quoted is wrong.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Well he's right that the main conflict gets far less screen time than the convoluted explanations of the movie's rules, or trippy but pointless imagery like the city turning in on itself. The movie certainly wasn't "about" Mal and Cobb, and that's really the point - ever since Batman Begins (or maybe The Prestige, need to rewatch it), Nolan seems to have forgotten the basic idea of making the audience give a shit about the main character.
Also, what do you disagree with? Please, show me Cobb's development as a character. He's an international corporate espionage artist who is sad about his culpability in his wife's death and just wants his kids back. Dude has the personality and uniquity of a fence post. Hell, pretty much every other guy on the team had more personality, probably because they were better actors than Leo but also because Nolan gave them all of the good lines at the expense of even the minimal development given to Cobb.
Also, what do you disagree with? Please, show me Cobb's development as a character. He's an international corporate espionage artist who is sad about his culpability in his wife's death and just wants his kids back. Dude has the personality and uniquity of a fence post. Hell, pretty much every other guy on the team had more personality, probably because they were better actors than Leo but also because Nolan gave them all of the good lines at the expense of even the minimal development given to Cobb.
That is his character. And I'm totally okay with that, because his story was interesting.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
But character IS story. Without development of Cobb - who he is as a person, on the interior - you're left with melodrama, for there's no reason to give a shit about Cobb's depression or his inability to overcome
Mal's suicide
Just because you don't like a character or you can't relate to him doesn't mean he has no personality. There's more to a character than just "good lines."
Cobb is a smart man trapped in the past by guilt who deceives his team members and puts them in grave danger to find a way back to his children. He's not the most complex character in film history but for the genre I think he stands up pretty well. Considering that the climax of his arc is an argument with himself I thought he was interesting.
Cobb is a smart man trapped in the past by guilt who deceives his team members and puts them in grave danger to find a way back to his children. He's not the most complex character in film history but for the genre I think he stands up pretty well. Considering that the climax of his arc is an argument with himself I thought he was interesting.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Yes, there is, but I never said that it did, merely that his teammates got all of the memorable quotes. As for the rest - he's an international corporate espionage artist who caused his wife's death by implanting an idea into her brain and so is forced to jet around Europe in nice suits stealing secrets from CEOs. ...not exactly a relatable dilemma, and even the relatable emotions (guilt over his wife's death, missing his children) get relatively little time in the story, and they don't give him personality, merely emotional motivation. I don't have to like a character to see whether or not they're well-developed.
Considering that the job could have been accomplished much more efficiently WITHOUT his presence, I'd say that flies in the face of the idea that he's "smart," or even particularly good at his job. Setting that aside, though, none of this is really a description of Cobb as a person, merely a statement of his role in the plot of the movie. Who is he, on a deeper level? What are his beliefs, the things that make him tick? How and why did he become involved in the line of work that he did? What was he and Mal's relationship like, beyond the mere fact that they loved each other? These sorts of basic human-interest questions, the things that might make the audience want to spend time with him/them, are barely addressed in the movie, if at all, and that's what I mean.
The climax of any character could be an argument with himself, but that does not make the character, himself, interesting - the execution does. As for the genre - watch Kubrick's "The Killing." Kubrick cared about those characters, making the ultimate resolution extremely affecting. Hell, Ocean's Eleven wasn't particularly complex, but it also oozed style, was much better-paced, and had a charismatic, handsome guy at the fore to make up for its lack of depth.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Here I thought you were defending Ledger Joker.
Dude loves characters with no personality.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Except there's no core personality or set of traits to actually, like, drive the things that his character does. RLM's game works great for blockbuster movies - describe the character without describing their appearance, their job, or what they do in the movie. Alex DeLarge has a lust for life, he's vicious, he's lustful, he's humorous and personable, he's deceptive and manipulative, etc. That sort of thing. THAT'S what makes a character - they're memorable for just being themselves, not for doing this or that. Or, to put it differently - their doing this or that REVEALS them on a deeper, inner level. In acting, it's sometimes called a "telling action." Cobb does alot of things in the movie, but he's pretty much the definition of generic as far as characters go.
Desperate, reckless, intelligent, self-abusive loving father.
I think your hatred for DiCaprio's somewhat bloated head has tainted your view of his character.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
I'm surprised they didn't review Ted. I would have genuinely like to know. I get mixed reviews of it too. Mostly from people who either like Seth, hate Seth and those who can separate FG Seth from non-FG Seth.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
What did you think of Ted? I haven't seen it, but I like Seth in all his incarnations. So...
I thought Ted was pretty funny and pretty good overall. It's definitely one of Seth's better projects, and I think his voice-acting went a long way for me in it. The writing of the bear and John are probably the best parts of the movie, just the interaction of the two brings you this feeling of "oh that's cute" and funny at the exact same time, which really isn't easy to do.
I think the CG of the bear was absolutely fantastic. It was to the point where, while I always knew it was CG (because I have a functioning brain), I can't recall any point in the movie that it stuck out as CG to me. It really just felt like a little alive teddy bear.
There is definitely a bunch of jokes that fall flat, but they're easily forgotten for all the good ones in there. Mila Kunis is definitely the worst performance in the entire movie, but to her credit, her character isn't incredibly deep to begin with. From the beginning point, you can tell she's going to be that scoffing authority figure in John's life that tries to end his relationship with Ted.
Overall, it definitely had some faults, but it was a really fun movie, that I would definitely watch on Blu-Ray or something down the line. Seth should be really happy with how it turned out.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
I have friends who won't watch it because Seth is in it. But then again, one also won't watch Hot Tub Time Machine because of the title even though it was a great hilarious movie. (I'd love to see a review of that one. No one has done a review of it.)
Better than the Hangover movies. I said it.
You know what, I didn't really plan on watching it because of that reason. I thought that he just wasn't funny anymore, and while the concept was definitely novel, it still was just going to be a Peter Griffin voiced bear with references out the ass. Thought it'd turn out to be awful. A friend suggested we go, and I didn't want to be a dick, so I agreed, and I'm happy I did, because it turned out to be really surprising for how fun it was.
I'm glad I was wrong.
EDIT: By the way, I never knew that a lot of the internet hated Nolan. I know Gaf loves his work a lot though, as do I.
I'm glad I was wrong.
EDIT: By the way, I never knew that a lot of the internet hated Nolan. I know Gaf loves his work a lot though, as do I.
http://redlettermedia.com/mr-plinketts-star-wars-a-new-hope-commentary-track-now-available/
Will watch/listen to this tonight.
Will watch/listen to this tonight.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
Which version of the movie is it for?
darkpaladinmfc
Member
Now available! Mr. Plinketts commentary track for Star Wars! The original! aka A New Hope. This is for the DVD release of the film from 2004. The special edition version. You know the one with the terrible photoshopped cover that most people seem to own. This commentary may also work with the Blu-Rays too.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
Oh good. That's the one I have. I can't tell anymore when they add stuff in and screw up the length. I will have to listen to this soon.
Their skits are the worst. Watched the first two minutes, skimmed the rest and saw there was no actual review, and stopped watching. Bleh
Lionel Mandrake
Member
Wow at the cameo. I guess they've gotten fairly big.
Hopefully that means more money to do more dumb stuff.
That commentary is awesome. I love Plinkett.
I don't mind 'em. Not always great, and Jay isn't hilarious or anything, but I always find Mike to be pretty damn funny.
Lionel Mandrake
Member
Every time Mike says "Oh my God," I lose it.
John Rabbit
Banned
their skits remind me of MST3K for some reason. most likely the low production quality. but the humor is similar in a way.
Davey Cakes
Member
I like the skits. They're all in good fun.
This was a funny episode. They gave EXACTLY the right amount of time towards the Step Up review as they should have.
This was a funny episode. They gave EXACTLY the right amount of time towards the Step Up review as they should have.
Spieler Eins
Member
I thought it was funny. They can be bad too, but in general they are miles above any of these other ,,angry review'' buffoons that do terrible skits and whatnot.
At the end of the day I prefer when they randomly mix in some scripted comedy/jokes inbetween some natural movie discussion nevertheless. Plinkett skits aren't always a hit either, I thought they were quite overdone in the Episode II review.
At the end of the day I prefer when they randomly mix in some scripted comedy/jokes inbetween some natural movie discussion nevertheless. Plinkett skits aren't always a hit either, I thought they were quite overdone in the Episode II review.
Lmao. Mike is comedy gold in all of their content.
crimzonflame
Member
lmao @ the ending
Nappuccino
Member
I like the short sketches. Keep them to a 1.5 min or less and I'll be happy.
SteveWinwood
Member
wtf at tim
megamerican
Member
I thought they couldda done more with Tim. I mean he basically sat in a chair and then flew off. He even looked kinda bored.
I think the Lucas stuff has kind of run its course. Hopefully this will be the end of it.
I think the Lucas stuff has kind of run its course. Hopefully this will be the end of it.
Grinchy
Banned
I love these guys, but this wasn't my favorite episode. It was shocking to see Tim at first but I don't feel like he added anything spectacular. I actually like when they do their ridiculous side stories for the reviews, but an entire episode of them being schlocky was more miss than hit. It wasn't terrible, but I would have actually preferred it if they tore that crappy dance movie apart for real.
It was funny I thought, and it was only like 8 minutes, not really even an entire episode. I thought it was funny that they didn't even dignify reviewing that shitty dance movie. All he said was that it fucking sucked and then it ended. Thought that was brilliant.
I don't know, I guess I like it when they just do intentionally dumb stuff. I was cracking up just the whole time when they were talking shit on the whole premise and just talking about other stuff while George Lucas explained his plan.
I don't know, I guess I like it when they just do intentionally dumb stuff. I was cracking up just the whole time when they were talking shit on the whole premise and just talking about other stuff while George Lucas explained his plan.