User Profile

Forum Activity by jasper de large

It is known.
Sep 10, 2017 12:15 AM
John Dumbear
last splashI love Election but I don't like Sideways. Too smug.

If anyone orders Merlot, I'm leaving. I am NOT drinking any fucking Merlot!

IDK what's smug about it. Yeah the protagonist is a bit of a snob, but the joke is on him half the time. It's about how confronting his own insecurities for which the snobbery is sort of a veil. Bu smug? I just don't know. He seems humble and down on himself. His friend is the smug one, but there is depth to his character too.
Sep 5, 2017 11:44 PM
John Dumbear
jasper de largeAlexander Payne is another great one. A 7.5 for "Sideways" is underrating criminally. It belongs in the top 100 probably.

Love all his work. He can do no wrong. Sideways, Election, Nebraska, About Schmidt, The Descendants and Citizen Ruth are brilliantly written, low brow humor. Can't wait for "Downsizing" this winter.

How the fuck is he not in the top 250?

He mainly does comedy/dramedy. I've seen the first 4 you've mentioned but not the other 2 yet. Comedy is plainly harder.

If he put the same level of effort into action/thrillers/straight-drama (see: Oscar bait) instead, I'm sure he'd have at least 1 movie in the top 250, probably 2. Downsizing sounds fucking crazy. Hard to believe he pulls off the high concept. Haven't read too much about it but the premise seems very Charlie Kaufman.
Sep 5, 2017 11:35 PM
Alexander Payne is another great one. A 7.5 for "Sideways" is underrating criminally. It belongs in the top 100 probably.
Sep 5, 2017 7:52 AM
No doubt in 100 years it will be very different. Maybe only 1/4 of the movies on the list currently will remain. Maybe less.

But IMDb doesn't have too terrible a memory. There are many classics on there. How else could Hitchcock be the top director with the most movies on the 250? And Kubrick as well. Paths of Glory is over 60 years old. Great movie, glad it's on the list.

As I've said, there is a little to be desired from the IMDb consensus, but it does have legitimacy. I would personally like to see more comedies on there and animated movies. But of course this can be hand waved as merely an objection based on personal bias. I will still contend that, in my honest belief, there should be more appreciation for comedy. It is harder than dying they say. In other words, comedy is harder than drama or action/thrillers.

It is a guarantee that if you try to thrill an audience or break their hearts, you are likelier to succeed than to make them laugh, uplift their spirits and be as appreciated for it. So few comedies on the top 250. IMO Hot Fuzz should be on there, along with "One, Two, Three!" by Billy Wilder and "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World"
Sep 5, 2017 7:34 AM
I feel like Fincher is slumming lately with projects like Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (a remake of pop pulp) and Gone Girl (more sensationalized, tabloid-y type fare). These are both excellently crafted movies nonetheless. He's a master in the top echelon, worthy of comparison to Hitchcock IMO. He just works a bit slower I think, or perhaps that is just the modern system.

I want to say that Fincher is technically better than Nolan. But there is heart in Nolan's work, and undoubtedly Fincher's as well, but there's just something that begs a unique level of admiration for Nolan given that he has written most of his movies.

Is it more challenging to make a great movie when you work from a script by Aaron Sorkin than it is to have to write your own original story and make that sucker sing, to make it resonate with tens of millions of people?

The Social Network is Fincher's best movie since Fight Club and Se7en. And he's had great ones in between. Again, I think he's arguably technically better than Nolan, but he is benefiting from some great writers too, like Sorkin, Palahniuk and Eric Roth.
Sep 5, 2017 7:15 AM
Cronenberg comes to mind. Unless I am mistaken, I don't think he has any up there. But The Fly, Dead Ringers, and Eastern Promises are great.
And we cannot forget Videodrome.

He is truly one of the greatest directors, perhaps a bit spotty at times, but typically unique and memorable. I'll always root for another hit from him.
Sep 5, 2017 7:03 AM
Death Proof
last splashTDK is good but not TDKR.

Thank god for that. Dark Knight Rises sucked.

Even his "worst" movie TDKR is better than almost everything to come out of Hollywood statistically speaking, let alone Marvel for that matter.

Nolan's worst is still better than at least 95% of movies.
Am I saying that the lowest movie score he's registered should be a 95%?

I'm saying his worst movie is still better than 95% of what else is out there, the average score of which would be about a 6.0. His worst movie is still better than that, and the rest are 8's or better.

This guy has 8 out of his 10 movies in the IMDb top 250. That's just fucking insane.

Now, certainly there are some shortcomings I personally find regarding the IMDb consensus, but whatever they may be, one does not simply gain credit for getting 8 movies in the top 250.

He is 2nd only to Hitchcock and tied with Kubrick.

Sep 5, 2017 6:54 AM
James MacKinnon
last splashMemento is still his best movie IMO.

Ah. Very true.?

That's a valid point, though TDK is still my favourite of his shows, Heath is just a beast in that movie!

I kinda like The Prestige or even Insomnia more than Memento. Not that Memento is weak by any means. Any one of these movies would be the crown jewel in 99% of other directors' filmographies.

This is what is being totally disgustingly and revoltingly overlooked here:
Sep 5, 2017 6:38 AM
Simon Williams

Snookered by the hype and war film fandom, ducats were placed on counter, a ticket for admission passed back. Lights dimmed, anticipation mounted, and... nothing. Nothing. Save lurching between disparate, battle set pieces featuring people for whom little or no empathy exists. Lacking investment in the characters, what remains are merely adequate, bloodless war scenes easily outgunned by the recent "Fury" and, farther back, "Saving Private Ryan." For example, a young boy is killed but we know nothing of him, nothing of his motivation for climbing aboard a civilian, Dunkirk-bound boat at the last minute. We feel nothing for him because he's simply a cardboard cutout.

As the actors barely register emotion, boredom set in and not to be shaken off. The characters move as wind-up toys. There are few actors who bare their soul like Cillian Murphy, here a shell-shocked survivor. As directed, he sleepwalks with the depth of an amateur in a high school production. He's not alone. All the actors turn in measured performances with identical blank looks and monotone deliveries. Particularly wasted is the actor's actor, Kenneth Branagh.(2)

1st bold
The script of this movie is pretty short. There are only so many lines and you still seem to have missed perhaps the most poignant ones which speak directly to what you're criticizing the movie for lacking.

We get to know that boy's personal motivation better than that of pretty much anyone else in Fury or SPR, except for Captain Miller. And it was presented with poetic economy.

Dunkirk is a movie that takes very few breaks for introspection. It's primarily an action movie and a lot closer to the "non-stop" description than 99% of the movies that garner that blurb. It is unquestionably one of the most breathless and relentless movies ever made.

Fury was good, even damn good for the first 2/3. The final act kinda becomes drawn out and redundant and stretches credibility impossibly thin.

2nd bold
Have you heard of subtlety? This isn't an opera. There was plenty of shouting and torment in that little boat as it was flooding from the bullet holes. I thought Murphy was excellent. The way his tension escalates was perfect. Brannagh had very little room to work but was brilliant. Stiff upper lip you'd expect from a commander.
Sep 5, 2017 6:28 AM
"Fortune and glory"
I would say the shooting star is more of an Easter Egg thing.
Aug 29, 2017 9:45 PM
There hasn't been anyone who could live up to his level of popularity since.

I suggest Marc Savlov or Michael Phillips in terms of wit, but neither of them have the video-broadcast presence. Marc I don't think I've ever seen a picture of, and Michael does do video reviews, had appearances with Roper, but his personality is more naturally subdued.

Honestly, I think the only possibilities that offer just an incipient potential at becoming the next Ebert is the AVGN (Angry Video Game Nerd) whose first name is James, but I forget his last name.

I truly believe James is our generation's Ebert, and I hope to see him continue to grow and probably make his Cinemassacre channel his primary focus over time. I think he has gradually grown out of videogames, or at least he doesn't seem to be that concerned with keeping up on current gaming industry, which is fine by me, as I can relate.

His Cinemassacre channel is much more natural and therefore futureproof than the AVGN persona he plays to fans with. IMO AVGN is still fun, but there will come a time when it's more of a novelty than a passion. I suspect he's probably lost interest in AVGN years ago, but it remains popular, and I admit it can still be kinda funny, but as I've grown older, the schtick proves to wear a bit thin.

But he has an enduring passion for movies, especially classic horror movies. If Ebert were still alive, I'd love to see him co-host some balcony reviews with James. I think their tastes would have a lot of overlap.
Aug 29, 2017 5:24 PM
His work is filled with flourishes like that. There are more ideas per scene (almost on a shot-per-shot basis) in his movies than in 99% of other filmmakers. He is truly a visionary and driving force behind his storyboards. He's a lot more subtle these days though. IDK.
Aug 29, 2017 5:11 PM
Matt NorcrossThe 1999 version of The Mummy will always be better. Especially because of the Universal Studios attraction it inspired... Revenge of the Mummy: The Ride. Google it.

That was a good ride. Best part of HallowScream or whatever they call their event. Halloween Horror Nights. That's it. I didn't care for any of the haunted houses that much, but that ride was fun.
Aug 25, 2017 9:05 PM
MGD2[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Well God bless the queen and country. What a sanitized war film. Only Once did the German planes bombing and strafe the beach over a week period. B.S., 1 spitfire with only 40 mins of fuel managed to shoot down 3 me109s, 3 Hinkle bombers, and while[/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]coasting with his engine out of fuel shoot down a stuka dive bomber... common. Historical photographs show the beach crammed with 1000s of abandoned equip. Tanks, trucks, artillery pieces, etc. in the movie nothing. Not even a burning truck. I felt the movie was pretty much a tribute to the glory of the British Empire, but historically white washed.[/font][/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Yes, bad cinema any way you see it.[/font][/font]

I think you're confusing cinema with historical perfection.

The movie, title notwithstanding, doesn't cover the entire evacuation operation. It couldn't possibly. At most one can only expect glimpses of the whole thing. GLIMPSES. That's what 100 minutes amounts to, pared down from 9 days of chaos.

Are there other ways to show this event? Of course. I touched on this earlier in the thread. Was this the perfect way? No such thing. The hardest thing about such events is driving a narrative thread home to audiences.

You could cut to more dense action scenes and use CGI to populate more shots. This would likely make it even harder for audiences to connect with any individual characters though, and even in this shorter and more focused movie, some people inevitably struggle to keep track of the half dozen faces or so we see closely. Piling on more may not necessarily result in a stronger movie.

To be more historically accurate and show the nearly half million troops on the beach and convey the total scale on the one hand could inspire awe. I agree with this no bones about it.
But it could also diminish the impact of the losses we feel on a more intimate level. With 400,000 men out there, they managed to save 330,000, or about 83%.

The overwhelming majority of ppl who were lost died drowning in ships that were torpedoed. The movie already features 4 dramatic scenes of sinking ships. Does it really need more? Well, to convey the totality of the losses, I suppose it would have to. But we're already up against a feature length goal of about 100 minutes. So one could argue just make the movie longer. Ok, yes this could be done, and it would cost a lot more money, and shooting such sinking ships is both expensive and dangerous. But we have to ask just how many more sinking ships are necessary to convey the point?

The movie follows 3 converging paths, but the one we follow mostly features a poor bloke who already boards and is forced to abandon 3 different boats. We can understand if this may be more than enough for anyone.

Does Farrier (Hardy's character) get away with a few more seconds of ammo burning than is 100% accurate? Yes, I believe so. Does he rack up an incredible tally? Perhaps it is implausible. But it isn't ridiculously unrealistic. There were actual heroes in the war who accomplished unbelievable things. A lot of it was dumb luck of coincidence. But luck isn't something you can simply rely on and expect to come out cleanly. Farrier doesn't make it back. He likely knew he wouldn't be able to make it back about halfway through his mission anyway. So he pushed on, certainly realizing he would most likely have to ditch anyway. So as long as you're coasting, you may as well go for broke.

Was his final sacrifice improbable? Yes. Was it impossible? Maybe. But going back to your point about the whole scale of the operation, his was still a drop in the bucket and I thought it was remarkably restrained how they showed it from different angles and cut-aways. We see it mostly from the perspective of men on the beach and pier and some on the boats. It was just a 1 on 1. He didn't save hundreds of thousands of people. We already saw that the stranded men on the beach had endured repeating bombing. One more enemy plane breaking through wasn't going to make or break the battle of Dunkirk. The men below cheer as he cuts off that last Stuka, as much for that small victory as for the fact the the evacuation has been going underway and expedited by the arrival of more rescue ships. Most of them are going to make it home. Whether or not that last Stuka in the movie is stopped.

In the broader picture, the one you'd have preferred, and the one I probably would have done as well had I made the movie myself, that sacrifice would seem very small. And in this movie, most of the men below probably perceive it that way too. They know they've experienced a disaster and devastating failure. But because we rode with him and just a few others through the event closely, the gravity of it feels much heavier. He'll have to ditch beyond his allies' reach. Perhaps that is fitting since most of the Royal Air Force sacrificed outside of the perspective of the masses at Dunkirk, much further inland having to battle many more of the Luftwaffe to hold them back.

There is a whole lot more to the event than can be covered here. But this movie goes for intensity and impact on an acute level, with a touch of poetic allegory.

I see why not everyone will be satisfied with it, as I've said before. I just think it's a sublime tribute that works on multiple levels which very few movies achieve.
Aug 25, 2017 8:18 PM
Aug 25, 2017 7:37 PM
Normally not keen on 3D, but this is a classic and I've seen it so many times in standard presentation, may as well check it out in a different way. I'll probably see it, even better if I can bring someone who hasn't seen it at all.
Aug 25, 2017 7:08 PM
Cool. Still haven't seen a few of these.
Aug 21, 2017 8:50 AM
Compare with ratings and markets. Simpsons reaches the widest audience of those three, but I think Clone Wars may justify that higher budget because of home video sales. It is a popular series, but I don't know how their ratings fared compared to Simpsons which is on a major broadcast network. Clone Wars was on Cartoon Network, right? I just have a feeling the home video sales for CW are better than the latest Simpsons. Simpsons is all about advertiser money. CW is about that SW collector addict fanbase.

I understand from word of mouth that CW is well written, with many fans saying it's way better than the prequel trilogy. I saw a little bit of it and it seemed solid for what it is, but I just couldn't really get into the art style. I don't like toony-looking stuff too much for action. Puts me off. Batman TAS is the most stylized animated action series I still enjoy. Maybe CW isn't too far off of that? I'd have to look again.
Aug 21, 2017 8:47 AM
You guys are too incredibly fragile and easily triggered to be believed.

I'm asking a legit question.

Type in "condemned" and add "trump" and condemned because unrecognized. Same thing with Obama. The same does not happen however if you add Bush or Clinton. It recognizes "condemned" as a proper word. What gives?
Aug 21, 2017 8:36 AM