Vic Sage

Tarantino is carrying on the themes of America's history of racial conflict from DJANGO, this time implying a more hopeful (if ultimately futile) cooperation between the races by the end. And there is a certain Aristotilian unity of time and place, super-imposed on white, mountainous landscapes of snow and cold, with the crucified Christ looking down on the goings on. And there is some darkly funny and truly horrific stuff, with the last half-hour an orgy of blood and guts. And there is his typical use of great 70s-80s era actors (Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell, Lee Horsley) and members of his stock company (Sam Jackson, Michael Madson, Tim Roth), accompanied by another great Morricone score. But i didn't love it. Unlike DJANGO, there is absolutely nobody to root for here, and its slow pace doesn't build in intensity; it's just blah blah blah until... [spoilerS] everybody dies [END SPOILERS]. If the excessive violence had been spread out more, it could've built from 1 killing to the next, but this is like... well, have you ever been nauseated after a night of heavy drinking, and you're just sort of lingering like that for hours, and then you burp, but your burp picks up a hitchhiker and you end up projectile vomiting and shitting yourself all at once? It's sort of like that. And where the fuck did that Tarantino narration come from? It's never established as a storytelling device... it just shows up halfway through the movie, then disappears. wtf? If you want to see a great film in which a bunch of bad guys are stuck in a room before ultimately tearing themselves apart, see the infinitely superior RESERVOIR DOGS. I'm glad i saw H8, and middling Tarantino is better than alot of other stuff, but this one isn't even in Quentin's top 5. Tarantino filmography: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=18827&p=493057&hilit=tarantino#p493057

RealityChuck wrote: I wouldn't call this his best (that's still Pulp Fiction, but he still hasn't made a bad movie. DEATHPROOF and FOUR ROOMS were both bad. JACKIE BROWN is saved by a great Robert Forster performance. The rest of his stuff is good to great. I'm looking forward to seeing this one this weekend.

i have it Murphy, Cespedes and Duda (25-24-23), because Murphy's post-season puts him over the top, Cespedes' impact turned the team around and Duda, while putting up somewhat superior numbers, was such an extreme hot/cold streak guy, that he often hurt us as much as he helped us. When we were consistently losing low-scoring games in the middle of the season, he could've been the difference but he was an automatic out for long stretches. And anybody who watched the whole season can reasonably come to the same conclusion. A 3-run HR that makes a 6-2 lead into a 9-2 lead is nice, but a 2-run double that turns a 2-1 loss into a 3-2 win is nicer. All hits are not created equal so just looking at season totals doesn't tell the whole story.

cleverly told and terrifying, with some great performances.

A "return to form" is one thing; the regurgitation of the same story mechanics and plot points is another. I think it was a reasonable expectation for the movie to continue the adventure, not repeat it. And i won't defend the prequels, but (1) the third one wasn't bad, and the 2nd one is not terrible, (2) the problems were more in the scripting and acting than the plots per se*, and (3) they were judged by the standards set by the original trilogy, which were impossibly high, and this one is being judged by the standards of the prequel trilogy, which are ridiculously low. * (with the exception of "midi-chlorians", which were a terrible idea.)

with all the time and money at their disposal, remaking the original was the best idea Disney and JJ could come up with? Say what you want about Lucas, but he had the vision to see the story unfold... this didn't unfold, it folded back on itself, regurgitating every single trope of the original. Sure, it was well executed, but that's a pretty low bar. feh.

30 - Granderson 29 - deGrom 28 - Harvey 27 - Syndergaard 26 - Familia 25 - Murphy 24 - Cespedes 23 - Duda 22 - Colon 21 - d’Arnaud 20 - Flores 19 - Conforto 18 - Niese 17 - Tejada 16 - Lagares 15 - Wright 14 - Matz 13 - Robles 12 - Cuddyer 11 - Gilmartin 10 - Verrett 9 - Goeddel 8 - Clippard 7 - Uribe 6 - Johnson 5 - Reed 4 - Plawecki 3 - C Torres 2 - Nieuwenhuis 1 - Campbell

and that is why i'm not even going to bother, unless i catch on cable at some point.

[video:31atomge]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDkrprZcO3Y[/video:31atomge]

i can't get past this CGI animation -- Peanuts cartoons should be simple, hand-drawn cell animation, not high techy. It's just... wrong. ranking PEANUTS cartoons -- Top 12: A CHARLIE BROWN XMAS A BOY NAMED CHARLIE BROWN ITS THE GREAT PUMPKIN SNOOPY, COME HOME CHARLIE BROWN'S ALL-STARS A CHARLIE BROWN THANKSGIVING HE'S YOUR DOG, CHARLIE BROWN RACE FOR YOUR LIFE, CHARLIE BROWN YOU'RE IN LOVE, CHARLIE BROWN YOU'RE NOT ELECTED, CHARLIE BROWN IT'S THE EASTER BEAGLE, CHARLIE BROWN IS THIS GOODBYE, CHARLIE BROWN

Absolutely. I didn't know about his brother's suicide (or maybe i knew and forgot), and so "why go on" would certainly seem a pertinent question for Ridley to answer, or at least to raise. But there were a million things the movie could have been about, as evidenced by the many stories about a man's survival -- with its attendant isolation, abandonment, introspection, desperation, revelation, transcendence and redemption -- that have tackled the themes that this obvious metaphor offers. And there is always some new perspective or insight to be had, or some new way to pose the fundamental questions. "Why go on?" is certainly one of them, and how do you maintain hope in the face of such a hopeless situation?, and how does such prolonged isolation impact our fundamental humanity? But this movie really offers nothing thematically; it's just a one-foot-in-front-of-another procedural. Which is a surprise to me because, whatever else one can say about Ridley's work (and i've said a lot), it has never been short on themes and big ideas...often short on story, and character too, but never themes. Here, all we get are banalities like "keep your chin up", and "a smile will see you through", and "yea, teamwork!", and "what a great species we are", and "it's better to survive than not". He toys with "science v religion" (i.e., Man vs God) with the early scene of Damon cutting up the cross to use for kindling, but it is never developed beyond that, and so is an idea that's as abandoned as our heroic astronaut. But there is more than just a lack of theme here. There is a lack of dramatic conflict. There are 3 basic forms of dramatic conflict: Man vs Man, Man vs Nature (or God), and Man vs Himself. The best stories have aspects of all of these. While MARTIAN has "Man v Nature" in abundance, there are virtually no other conflicts going on, so in order to work, such a story has to be executed perfectly, and keep us guessing, and then actually have something to say about the conflict. But this movie, while executed well for the most part, doesn't go anywhere you didn't already expect it to, and just didn't have anything whatsoever to say... which is a missed opportunity, given the subject matter, the artists involved and the budget. But according to Rotten Tomatoes, i'm in a miniscule minority with this view, so the mileage of others clearly varies.

The Firefly panel was fun... Oh yes it was! Later that afternoon, I was on the exhibit hall floor and i saw a tall, dark, curly haired woman coming my way and i remember thinking: "damn, she looks like Gina Torres... wait, that IS Gina Torres!" I told her how much i enjoyed the FIREFLY panel and she said... now get this... "thank you." I had a moment with Gina Torres! There was an obvious and immediate connection, i could tell. If it wasn't for that restraining order, we'd be dating right now. My wife is ok with this: Gina is on my "celebrity sex exemption" list. Apparently i'm not on Gina's "geeky fan sex exemption" list, but i'll wear her down with my psychotic level of attention to her every movement. Mark my words, she'll be mine one day. Gina, surrender now, you magnificent warrior queen.

dgwphotography wrote: I'm a little Marvelled out - I haven't seen Ant-Man yet, and I felt 3 of the previous 4 movies were underwhelming (Guardians of the Galaxy being the lone exception). I'm more excited about the Jessica Jones series on Netflix next month. We were shown the first episode at ComicCon this weekend, and it was very good. i was at Comic-Con, too! JJONES does look good. I'm loving the whole Netflix/Marvel tv universe, and look forward to Luke Cage and Iron fist joining in soon, too. As for the Marvel Movie-verse, the only one i haven't seen is F4, but i'll catch up with it on cable. I enjoyed Ant-Man... it wasn't great, but it was fun.

Excellent performance by Damon, lovely visuals (as usual for Scott), but so utterly devoid of character development, or even the development of significant themes (beyond "its better to survive than not"), that it left me cold. Matt Damon's Astronaut Watney is a very likeable figure, using humor to get him through his struggle for survival. The movie has a lighter more optimistic tone than most Crusoe-style adventures and is engaging enough, for the most part. But there is no drama in this story... "drama", in the sense of a character that starts low and ends high (comedy) or starts high and ends low (tragedy). The abandoned astronaut, with his good natured can-do spirit, "sciences the shit out of" his situation, and lives happily ever after, ultimately teaching other potential astronauts how to do likewise. Nothing happens that you couldn't guess from watching the trailer or reading a 1-line summary. Unlike Hanks in CASTAWAY or Bullock in GRAVITY, or even McConaughy in INTERSTELLAR, Damon's character has no arc and ends up no different than he started, except older and thinner, but apparently unchanged by his ordeal. Meanwhile, i guess we're supposed to care about the crew's guilt in abandoning him, but why? we don't even know their names and their characters consist of 1 idea each: the captain likes disco, there's a Russian guy, the Mara girl is cute and has a thing for one of the other scientist guys about whom virtually nothing is known. And their backstories are positively Shakespearean compared to the NASA ground crew. And when they take a vote about going back for their abandoned comrade, there really isn't any doubt what they will do. THE MARTIAN is just a plot-driven, mechanical story about what obstacle will arise next before the utterly inevitable conclusion finally shows up after 2.5 hours. Now sometimes a "procedural" can be just fine, and APOLLO-13 wasn't much more than that. But in that film, the real-time immediacy of their disastrous situation and their efforts to survive heightened the tension and, even though we already knew how it would end (it being a true story), the storytelling and pacing was such that you couldn't help but get caught up in the high stakes adventure of it. And whatever minimal character development was presented, the film takes time to establish characters on Earth before shooting them into space. THE MARTIAN, however, never establishes anybody and so becomes entirely reliant on plot (as opposed to theme and character), so it needed a high level of energy and pacing to keep our attention. Watney's rescue, however, is virtually in slow motion, playing out over 18 months, with all communication on a delay, so the story is necessarily attenuated and meanders at its own deliberate pace as we just sit and wait for the next thing to go wrong and watch how the problem is solved. The overall cheeriness and NASA-"rah rah" flag waving tone of it all tells us exactly where the story is leading long before it gets there. Everyone in this universe is noble, competent and selfless -- from the astronauts, to NASA, to the Chinese scientists -- so i guess that makes this more of a fantasy than it is science fiction. In any event, it makes it devoid of real human conflict or drama. Even the visuals, which are quite good, do not provide any breathtaking moments, which is the least I expect from a Ridley Scott film. The red buttes and valleys of Mars do recall John Ford's "monument valley" westerns, but to what purpose? THE MARTIAN is OK i guess, and champions science and all good things, but as drama it's nothing to write home about... particularly if home is 40 million miles away.

i just noticed that i use the word "lambasted" way too much in that essay. It's unavoidable when talking about Scott's films, but still.

I did a Ridley Scott filmography in a thread about BLADERUNNER. I think i still have it somewhere. oh wait... ----------------------------------------------------------- RIDLEY SCOTT FILMOGRAPHY BLADERUNNER: The Final Cutis being released in theaters for a limited run before being made available in a deluxe DVD set for Xmas. I've been looking forward to if for some time, since its one of my favorite movies. But let's be clear... Ridley Scott has to be the most over-rated director of his generation. Over the last 30 years, he has turned out maybe 3 or 4 good to great films, and then went back and sabotaged one of them. Scott started out as a set designer, and graduated to directing commercials in the 1960s-70s, so his style is exquisite in its sense of design and photography. But with regard to real storytelling, not so much. His first feature, THE DUELLISTS (1977), was a dirge-like contemplation of honor during the Napoleonic era. Its sonorous tone overlies exquisite visuals. But his next film ALIEN (1979), is perhaps the only truly great movie on his resume [on edit: with apologies to RealityChuck]. The quintessential "monster in the haunted house" movie dressed up as SF, it was both a huge critical and commercial success. This one gave him the clout to make, and then survive, his next project. BLADE RUNNER (1982) was a bomb upon its initial release but has, over time, become a cult classic and is now considered one of the greatest and most influential films of the last 25 years. And it certainly is my personal favorite of all his movies. The Vangelis score is hauntingly beautiful. The design is as influential as any movie ever made... until MATRIX, anyway. But most importantly, the themes of the story resonate in harmony with its images. What does it mean to be human? If you lack compassion, empathy, and emotional connection to others, are you really human? And if you have those things, does it matter what the origin of your biology is? Phillip K. dick wrote DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP partly as a critique of the "I was only following orders" defense of WWII-era Germans. Dick told us that we are each responsible for our own humanity, and the day we let the least of us die out of our own disinterest or lack of courage, we have surrendered that humanity. Of course, Scott completely sabotages this theme in the "Director's Cut" (and now again in the "Final Cut") by giving more evidence that Deckard is, himself, a replicant, thereby rendering the entire point moot. Instead of a story of redemption, where a person reclaims his humanity by recognizing the humanity in others, Scott turns it into a story of a replicant who learns to feel. Well, who cares if a non-existent fantasy construct called a "replicant" learns to freakin' feel, Ridley? Why don't you say something about people, instead, you schmuck?! The DIRECTOR'S CUT is actually worse than the theatrical release in other ways, too. In addition to adding the "Deckard is a replicant" theme, he has stripped out the voice-over narration, which furthered the movie's film-noir style, and its absence resonates throughout this cut. And while the movie didn't need the "happy ending" the studio originally insisted on, the dark ending you are now left with instead is not at all satisfying, and it removes the final images of blue sky that rewarded and mirrored Deckard's emotional transformation. These changes just indicate how little Scott understood what was great about his movie in the first place. After BLADERUNNER flopped, Scott churned out 3 stylish misfires: LEGEND (1985), SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME (1987) and BLACK RAIN (1989). LEGEND was a total flop, but SOMEONE and, to a lesser degree, BLACK RAIN were moderate commercial successes. These lead up to his getting hired on to direct THELMA & LOUISE (1991). T&L was both a commercial and critical success, and is an excellent film, but Scott was brought into this project fairly late in its development and doesn't feel entirely like a "Ridley Scott" picture. Still, it does offer the kind of strong, violent female protagonists (as in ALIEN) that would continue to be a thematic motif of his work. He followed up T&L with 3 pieces of Scottian crap: 1492 (1992) ,WHITE SQUALL (1996) and G.I. JANE (1997). While JANE was a huge hit (echoing his themes of militaristic women from ALIEN and T&L), I found it relentlessly ridiculous and nearly unwatchable. He hit the next one out of the park, however, with GLADIATOR (2000) ... a blockbuster/Oscar winner. But, despite its unmistakable grandeur and Russell Crowe's star-making performance, the film can be read as profoundly stupid and cynical (a view i share). Still, it remains one of his best works (which says all you need to know about Scott's career output). HANNIBAL (2001) was a hit, too, based largely on its status as a long awaited sequel to the terrific SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. The critics lambasted it for the most part, and, while opulent, it is also repugnant and unengaging. BLACK HAWK DOWN (2001) was next and joined SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME, G.I. JANE and HANNIBAL into the group of glossy but inept hits from the witless Brit. Despite its box office performance and even a generally positive critical reaction, BHD seems to me more akin to Scott's cinematic misfires like 1492 and WHITE SQUALL. BHD is basically a Bruckheimer film, where handsome young men perform heroic deeds at great speed and high volume. I didn’t hate it, but it left me totally uninvolved, unmoved, and not particularly entertained. I was, however (like the goofy-looking soldier in the film), left deafened by the din. Perhaps it could play on a triple bill with GI JANE and THE DUELLISTS as a meditation on the nature of martial honor... as told through a series of lovely photographs, narrated by a moron. Still, BHD has been Scott's last hit to date. MATCHSTICK MEN (2003) is a poorly constructed "Sting" con-man movie with an extremely annoying performance by Nick Cage. It failed to find an audience. KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (2005), however, is pure Ridley, returning to the epic scale of GLADIATOR. Unfortunately, Orlando Bloom is no Russell Crowe, so it ends up an entertaining doughnut... yummy around the edges with a hole in the middle. Again, coherence is not Scott's strongsuit, but this is probably his best film since GLADIATOR. Yet it, too, couldn't make back its huge budget domestically (though it ultimately paid off internationally). With A GOOD YEAR (2006), Ridley tried his hand at a romantic "dramedy". Watching Ridley Scott try to pull off this type of light entertainment is like watching a hippo trying to hula, which was not a sight anyone cared to see. A big flop . Lastly, this year's AMERICAN GANGSTER (2007) has a mixed critical buzz going before its November opening. We'll see what level of audience interest is shown, especially since its starring Denzel Washington. It could be pure hack work or a return to respectability. We shall see. But at this point in his career, Ridley Scott seems to me an idiot savant... a total genius with a camera, but nearly incapable of creating anything approaching human drama, except only occasionally and only be accident. --------------------------------- As it turned out neither GANGSTER, nor the subsequent BODY OF LIES (2008) and ROBIN HOOD (2010) did much to change the trajectory of his career, though i do admit some affection for Crowe's performance as Robin Hood, despite the leaden, lumbering movie he's trapped in. But then, some years later, i added a review of PROMETHEUS: PROMETHEUS (2012) - I would appreciate it if Sir Ridley just stopped making movies. This was as big, stupid, and stupifyingly pointless as any movie i've ever seen from him, and that's saying quite a bit. The film's horrific elements are ones he's used before; nothing new or innovative there. The theological/philosophical musings are banal, half-baked inanities. The characters are largely ignored, which is ok, cuz most of the performances suck anyway. Noomi Rapace (so good as the original girl with the dragon tattoo) does the best she can as the "true believer" (believer of what? who knows), but when she starts running all over the place immediately after having emergency stomach surgery, things get just too ridiculous (didn't anybody working on this film realize that surgically severed stomach muscles tend to be a hindrance to locomotion?). Guy Pearce is wasted under a ton of LITTLE BIG MAN age makeup (they could have cast his orthopedist in the role, for all it would've mattered). Charlize Theron is doing entirely too many "evil blonde ice queen" roles. And Charlize, take a tip from Noomi... when something huge, long and relatively narrow is falling straight down on top of you in a line, don't run straight ahead; just make a left. or a right. either way. And what is the guy from the WIRE doing here, talking about Stephen Stills' accordian? And if you were a scientist who was too scared to stay in the presence of a dead alien, so much so that you and another chicken scientist decided to walk back to the ship without waiting for the others in the party, and then you and your chicken buddy get stuck in the alien underground to wait out a storm, would you really go up to an alien worm/snake/serpent thingy rising up out of alien black goo and go "cootchy coo" while trying to pet it? REALLY? Ridley, your narrative sense was always borderline non-existent, but you've gone completely round the bend, without even visual innovation to distract us. You ain't great, Scott. Go back to commercials for the BBC and leave us the hell alone. ------------------------------- I passed on the opportunity to sit through his subsequent films, The Counselor and Exodus: Gods and Kings, but they were fairly well lambasted and unsuccessful. Now he gives us THE MARTIAN and, while i like what i see in the trailer and I'm tempted to see it, I remain dubious about its prospects. I hope for it to be great, or even good, but, alas, Scott's track record makes it unlikely.

[fimg=800:2d5fz3m7]https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/snrk24OIl6vwZz_fpNgkUw--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9MTE1ODtxPTk1O3c9MTUwMA--/https://classicfilmaficionados.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/wrecking_crew_xlg.jpg[/fimg:2d5fz3m7]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Judging by the reviews, this movie is every bit the travesty I figured it would be. (And I have to say, I'm very gratified by how bad the reviews are.) I hope that some day there's a Fantastic Four movie that respects the source material. This one certainly isn't it. I never would have imagined that there would be an FF movie that I would have no interest in seeing, but it's happened. yup. Once they screwed up the casting, i thought it would suck. then i saw the trailers and was sure of it. Now, upon its release, my worst expectations have been realized. This may be the only superhero movie i won't be seeing in a theater.

dgwphotography wrote: Vic Sage wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Good. We could use a Kevin McReynolds on this team. no, not again. I believe Edgy is referring to the Kevin McReynolds we had for the first four years of his Met tenure, not the puffy malcontent who came after... yeah, i wasn't that crazy about the first McReynolds either. Look, I know he was a very good player, but he wasn't a great player. He was a .270-280/20-25hr/85-95rbi/70-80r guy with a decent arm and a decent glove, who ran ok. He did everything fairly well, but he didn't do anything great. Plus he was a whining malcontent and a dog, and the next time he runs hard after a ball will be the first time . Plus we traded future MVP Kevin Mitchell to get him and only got a washed up Bret Saberhagen when we finally had enough of him. Plus i had a pathological hate for him on a genetic level which is otherwise hard to explain except that, for the same reason we've just had a Wilmer Flores love affair, with him demonstrating how much he cares about staying a Met, the sense that McReynolds had no real interest or enthusiasm for being here and would much rather have been huntin' possum in Arkansas just infuriated me.

Edgy MD wrote: Good. We could use a Kevin McReynolds on this team. no, not again.

type casting.

A great Chabon novella in the same vein... The story never actually names Holmes as the character its about, but its pretty clear.

depends on the 9-year old, but i'd say generally no. Intense, gory violence.

Really? Nobody has seen this?

actually i didn't mean ROAD WARRIOR II, I meant MAD MAX II: THE ROAD WARRIOR.