You'd think with a name like "Bong" this movie would be more on the trippy side.
I bet when he tells jokes, he really "crack"s himself up.
Haha that's funny.
My name was inspired by the sharknado review. I hope Sci Fi sees this and pays me a lot of money. =)
Dammit now I feel like squidward.
Pfft. I heard that joke back in "Joon:.
I need to see this now
Already reviewed this movie, but I totally agree with Brad and Max Force; it's a pretty great experience.
I've read "The Giver"
That movie is going to suck balls...
The reason why you can’t make a movie based off of “The Giver” is because “The Giver” is a very internal book… it’s very VERY internal. The Majority of the book takes place in the mind of the main character: it describes how the drugs that the society gives him affects his mind, how he can’t see color, and how nobody has any emotions. Then when The Giver gives him emotion, and gives him color, the transition is described at a very slow pace. There is not enough external plot in The Giver to make an entire movie out of. The rest of the book is nothing but descriptions for yet another crappy Sci Fi Government, if you hated “The Hunger Games”, and if you hated “1984” you will also hate “The Giver”.
I for one really hated reading The Giver. It was boring, and the only thing that made it someone readable was the amazing description of emotion, and internal conflict. That’s it. There’s no pay off in the plot, the concept is boring, and it was a pain in the ass to get through without falling asleep.
I’ve even commented to my friends in the past “Hey wouldn’t it be terrible if they made a movie based off of The Giver? There’s no way to accurately represent the internal struggle in this book via movie, they’ll never do it.” Guess what, they fucking did it.
I’m not going to see The Giver, even if it gets good reviews. I generally HATE Sci Fi government books, and I hate Sci Fi government movies even more.
“The Giver” is a movie that’s either going to crash and burn, or soar and shine. To me, it looks like it will be the same quality that everyone got out of The Hunger Games movies (AKA it looks like a piece of shit that is just begging to become overrated, just like your average Disney flick).
I absolutely do not recommend the book, and I do not recommend the movie. Even if they pull it off, even if the movie is good, it’s not worth your time. Unless you’re one of those people who really like the concept of stupid Sci Fi government shit. Seriously, is this what we’ve been degraded to as a people? Have we gotten to the point where we can create extreme unrealistic societies that take no effort or imagination, and ENJOY IT?! It’s absurd! It’s disgraceful! It’s a showcase of laziness, and I do not approve.
But even if you can somehow come up with an excuse for enjoying Sci Fi Government based “plots” that is, if you can call them plots, they’re mostly just descriptions of stupid unoriginal concepts mashed in with a plot (which mostly consists of an innocent character being unhappy with the world that they live in, usually sed innocent character is a teenager) that is so crappy that even a B-movie would turn it down. EVEN IF YOU CAN EXCUSE THAT, the movie is still going to be boring as fuck. So yeah, I don’t recommend it.
This commentary is a lot more entertaining to read if you read it as an young aspiring dictator being upset that dystopian novels exist.
Psh, it's not just the dystopian novels that annoy me, it's the utopian novels as well.
The fact that they exist doesn't bother me, it's the reception that bothers me.
Frankly I find sci fi government novels boring, and tedious to read, not to mention the fact that they're all the same god damn thing, making them unoriginal AS WELL as uncreative.
-Reviews a movie before actually having seen it? Check.
-Condemns others for liking things he does not like? Check.
-Excessively rambles on about something by blowing it out of proportion? Check.
Faggot Josh confirmed.
+ John K
1 I for the most part was offering my input on how crappy the book was, and based off of the previews I've seen, the movie clearly isn't showing any hope of being something better than the book. The movie is destined to fail because of the premise it's already chosen. That's deductive reasoning.
2. If I was walking down the road and I saw people eating crap, it would only be natural for me to condemn those people for it because I myself would find that eating crap is disgusting. The same goes for finding enjoyment out of Sci Fi government.
3. Blowing things out of proportion? Since when? This site is all about critiquing movies, and I'm offering my two cents about how I think that an upcoming movie is going to be utter crap. Saying that I'm not allowed to do that is like saying that a cat isn't allowed to shit in a litter box.
Yeah, honestly I'm not looking forward to The Giver either.
I read the book too, and you're absolutely right. This movie better bomb.
Here's what I think:
The Giver is a book that, as you said, would be really hard to turn into a movie. And given the terrible book to film adaptations we've seen over the years (from Harry Potter to Percy Jackson all the way to Catching Fire), I see very little hope left for The Giver.
-You are still judging the movie without having seen it. It is one thing to say "not interested", but another to say "this movie that is not even out yet will be bad".
-Your hyperbole does not apply here. To label a piece of entertainment as "crap" is the same as to say "I do not like this". Ergo, you are condemning others for liking something you do not like.
-I am not saying what you are or are not allowed to do, but I am saying you lack brevity.
Look dude, I'm not judging the movie despite not having seen it, I'm not saying that it can't be good, but I AM saying that I don't think the chances for it being good are that impressive.
Ok let me be clear on something, if you like Sci Fi Government, then go ahead and watch The Giver and see what you like. If you don't like Sci Fi government, don't watch The Giver, you won't like it, there's nothing BUT Sci Fi government in the book, and I'll be surprised if the book adds anything original, if it does, I might watch it.
Finally I would just like to say to you, John, that I'm actually kind of glad that you pointed out that I was being such an inconsiderate jackass there... I guess I just needed to show everyone how I felt, and I'm sorry if anyone got offended.
ugh... that last comment was full of typos... dammit I'm so sleepy, I went to bed at 2:00 in the morning last night, and I got up at 6:00 in the morning.
While I did not really like "The Hunger Games" books or movies all that much, Brad did enjoy both movies to a certain extent. So I am guessing that saying "if you hated The Hunger Games" as a jumping-off point for an assertion will not necessarily mean much to him.
I thought that The Giver was fine for what it was, though I read it when I was almost thirty and pretty much just accepted that I would probably have gotten more genuine enjoyment out of it had I read it back when I was the age of its target audience.
That's the thing though, I wasn't trying to make suggestions to Brad... I just wanted to let it all out: I did not enjoy reading The Giver, I do not like Sci Fi government... and I guess I felt that my opinion needed to be shared with everyone else. Sorry if I wasted your time :(
Armistice Day, that's what Dave meant.
Oh, that's what is was called before Remembrance Day (everywhere outside USA) or Memorial Day (USA)?
Armistice Day is the British Version of those Holidays. In the Australasian countries, it's Anzac Day on April 25th.
Technically, ANZAC Day is ceebrating something else, the anniversary of the Gallipoli landings, rather than the end of WWI. I think we still commemorate Remembrance Day, it's just that ANZAC Day is more ell known because it's more nationalistic.
I agree Michael Pitt was great in season 2 of Hannibal! The way I see it, he was trying to out-Gary Oldman Gary Oldman's version of the character to point of chewing the whole scenery.
Hey Brad since you're checking out the Rifftrax version of Sharknado, I didn't know if you've talked with Spoony about it since he made a short video accusing us of "not getting" the movie. Maybe you can mention that in your video!
Of course if you're playing Mason, it's much easier to "chew" on some scenery.
Wackity shmackity doooo.....
Sadly Hollywood puts out what they think will make money, not what's good. That's why Transformers and Grownups 2 not only were released like they were, but made tons of money. Hollywood seems to be right about that.
Now, for Snowpiercer, I didn't like it. Now because it wasn't amazingly well made and acted, because it was. I just thought it was really depressing. But I did really love the production design, and I love Jamie Bell, so that made up for the twisted-ness of the movie.
Brad, just something I noticed in the description Snowpiercer is missing it's "c". Love the reviews, keep it up!
I am going to find time to see this next week screw obligations this sounds fucking great! (And I have no excuse not to I live in fucking Manhattan there are probably at least two or three theaters possibly showing it)
I hope you enjoy yourself! =D
I had to watch Bong Joon-ho's "The Host" for a Korean cinema course. Pretty much a lot of Korean films I have seen tend to fare on the harsh side when it comes to imagery ("Oldboy," "The Isle," "Peppermint Candy"). It has to deal with what is called "han," a word that has no English definition, but can be described as an artistic and cultural dwelling on the lament and sorrow that Koreans had to endure throughout history, due to the nation being constantly occupied, freed, occupied again, and now divided in two/occupied under different foreign nations.
Bong's "The Host" (I hate having to specify it as that so as to make sure I'm not referring to the damn 2013 movie) was awesome, but I am hoping they'll bring Snowpiercer to a theater near me soon.
Wow, I never thought that I would come across someone else on this site who has seen Peppermint Candy. That will teach me. That movie was a bit much for me, though I guess that I kept getting impatient to see why this guy was such a jerk. I am more partial to Oasis, even with the protagonists also being alienating.
To be honest, Oldboy was my least favorite of Park's Revenge trilogy, though it seems to be either everyone else's favorite or the only one that they have seen. I was also a little apprehensive about Snowpierce, since I loved Memories of Murder, but found that The Host and Mother left me cold. Maybe I will watch those two movies again some time and my feelings will change, though.
I have seen three Kim Ki Duk movies and I just found them to be thoroughly unpleasant experiences.
Yeah, Kim Ki-duk is best known for his unpleasant movies. The one clip I had to watch from "The Isle" has kept me away from fishing forever. I will say, if you ever decide to give him another try, "3-Iron" is really good. It departs from his usual cringeworthyness and is actually a rather touching movie about a guy who loves a girl (neither of whom speak) who is married to an abusive schmuck.
Also, I loved Peppermint Candy and its analysis of the nation's history as it essentially forced its people into a male-dominated, machismo-driven society, voiding Kim of a more peaceful life; plus, how it was like Forrest Gump but only showing the darker moments of South Korea's contemporary history.
And I have yet to see the other two of Park Chan-wook's Revenge movies. I love "Oldboy," but I can understand now how it's driving everyone crazy with it's popularity overshadowing the other two.
I cannot respond to your comment directly, so I will just put it here.
I saw three Kim Ki-duk movies without knowing that they were by the same director. The first was Bad Guy and the second was Samaritan Girl. I later learned that they were by the same guy and got the impression that whoever was behind these movies had serious issues, particularly with women, and was maybe trying to shroud his issues under the guise of social commentary. A few years later, I saw Spring Summer Fall Winter and Spring, again without realizing who directed it. The movie was less overtly nasty, but there was the same undercurrent that I just could not handle.
Perhaps I may have enjoyed Peppermint Candy had it not had the reverse chronology, since it just seemed like scene after scene of this guy being a horrible person with no context. So as another flashback came, I was just waiting for him to be not horrible or to give some sort of an explanation, and that made for a frustrating watch.
Oldboy was okay, but I honestly do not get the love that others have for it. I just found it bloated and alienatingly hyperkinetic. I suppose that it was a conscious choice on Park's part as a response to the failure of the sparser and quieter Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, but the stylistic choices kept me at a distance and the plot twists at the end just made me roll my eyes.
Yeah, apparently a lot of Koreans think Kim Ki-duk has problems. They have a very divided opinion of him and his movies. I have to see more of his movies at some point, but I'm aware that it's going to be anything but an easy viewing.
***!!! SPOILERS FOR "PEPPERMINT CANDY" !!!***
I felt that the reverse chronology really worked for the movie. You see the main character at first as a troubled man who is hellbent on committing suicide. "Why does he do that?" Because it's not the first time, since he tried to do the same in a time when South Korea was in a terrible economic disaster. But then we're introduced to this woman. "Who is she?" His ex-wife, whom he was married to during the peak of post military-dictatorship Republic of Korea (S. Korea has only had democracy since 1987). I feel that after each vignette, you are left asking "why?" The question is answered with not only what lead him to become the way he did, but also the events that influenced him. I got from the film that it would initially be the Kwangju Massacre of 1980 that began his and South Korea's doomed struggle to maintain inner peace (our instructor compared the impact that Kwangju left on Koreans to the impact that 9/11 left on us Americans). Had the film been told in a normal chronology, we'd either be given a mediocre film told in a standard structure with an all-around miserable ending, or we'd be given the payoff in advance with no reason to continue the plot for whatever reason. With the reverse chronology, we're given technically a mystery, one that doesn't ask "whodunnit", but "why-dunnit?"
***!!! SPOILERS FOR "OLDBOY" !!!***
The same thing goes for "Oldboy." We are introduced to the antagonist earlier in the film. OK, so he's the one who imprisoned Oh Dae-su. Fine. But WHY? Eventually we find out why, because he spread malicious rumors. Also I think "Oldboy" gained its popularity through the word-of-mouth marketing (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Quentin Tarantino saw this at a film festival and went on about how awesome he thought it was). I hold it in high regard because of its story and it was the first Korean movie I ever saw. But I still want to see the other two films of Park's "Revenge Trilogy."
The difference in plot and structure can really be a challenge for people used to the typical 3-act structure most movies from the West employ (I found it difficult at times). But some of them are worth the challenge.
I think that the issue for me with Peppermint Candy was that I didn't finish each sequence asking "why is he like this" but "why are we still watching this horrible person". I think that I may have wondered why he was like that had there been more of a sense that he was not always such a jerk. I guess that there may have been hints during the reunion dialog, but I was too distracted by the already bad behavior. The reveal of the massacre may have had more resonance with Koreans, but it was too little too late for me.
As for Oldboy, I was asking why all this was happening. And the reveal was a pet peeve of mine. I hate it when stories use that as some shocking twist. There are very few stories where it can work for me (and I can think of only one off the top of my head) and it did not work with Oldboy. I was even more annoyed when I learned that it was not even in the original manga, so I just scoffed at all the grumbling about the remake possibly leaving out that one aspect. The film had been annoying me already up until then, and that was just the last straw for me.
Hahaha yessss, I have that same exact giraffe shirt.
Hey Brad are you gonna go see dawn of the planet of the apes?You should really take Jake.He seems to hate the franchise.
Also I find horribly disappointing that Transformers is making 37 million while Edge of tomorrow only made 3.7 million Snowpiercer 1 mill and Godzilla only 0.4m.WTF IS WRONG WITH AMERICA?!!
Godzilla has been out a while, and as made just shy of $200 million in the US...it's not exactly done badly at all.
I was looking at Rotten Tomatoes.So mabey their wrong.
Yep I was wrong.They just havnt updated the amount the movies have made on their front page yet. The real earnings are $90.9m for Edge of Tomorrow,$197.9M for Godzilla, still only $1.5M for Snowpiercer though, and $175.4M for TFAOE.So actually Godzilla has made more than Transformers.
My fiance and I drove thirty miles to see "Snowpiercer" immediately after I had a two-hour tattooing session. I had to sit hunched forward in the car on the way there, in the theater, and on the way home to avoid mangling or infecting the open wound on my back.
]When he gets home, said fiance and I will enjoy watching this video to see what Brad thought of it.
[Also, it's really weird if you imagine it sort of paralleling "Sunshine," another movie in which Chris Evans fights from within a sealed tin can to try and save the freezing remnants of humanity]
Brad, what are you talking about? Why do you need the Purge as an excuse to fuck your neighbor's dog? Do that shit anyway, and don't feel the need to apologize >__>
Also, have either of you guys gotten a trailer for that Keaton movie "Birdman?" Even though it has nothing to do with the cartoon character…it looks pretty fucking solid
OK. Now, you guys have got me really wanting to see this movie, and I had never even heard of it before I saw this video.
Purge Anarchy, I want to see this so bad. Almost looks like they rolled Escape From New York, The Warriors, Hunger Games (R rated version), and Assault on Precinct 13 rolled into one.
Armistice Day. It was World War One, and although the treaty was already agreed to, the generals thought it would be cute to stop the fighting at 11 o'clock. Thousands died that day because the masters of war wanted to be clever. Fuck the military and Fuck America.
Please do some research before you have your anarchist hate filled rant. Armistice Day celebrates the end of the war.So what your saying is that you would have liked the war to continue on killing people? Also America didnt play as big as a part in WW1 unlike WW1.
So if anything you should be saying fuck the British. Or better yet fuck the Germans like a normal human being.
*unlike WW2.(my keys are sticky)
Yes, Armistice day is the end of the war. An end agreed upon by the rulers who had previously negotiated to, rather than stop the fighting as soon as the agreement was reached, stop the fighting on a specific day and time. Some ten thousand people died ON Armistice Day because of these assholes' desire for a cutesy dénouement. That's ten thousand dead for something even more ridiculous than the war in the fist place.
"America didnt play as big as a part in WW1"
America's involvement in WW1 is probably the reason that WW2 happened. The enslavement inflicted on the Germans during the Wiemar period would not have been possible without the massive defeat secured by America's intervention.
"fuck the Germans like a normal human being."
Oh, you're one of those. Keep sucking the mutilated penis of your local rabbi, shabbat goyim.
"America's involvement in WW1 is probably the reason that WW2 happened."
Nice conspiracy theory, mate.
Great.Now were getting neo nazis on this site.
What the hell is with you idiots and your talk of "conspiracy"? I laid out a causal chain that is public knowledge: US involvement made the defeat of Germany extreme and incontestable, Germany was subjected to massive punitive actions, including reparations payment, loss of territory, and restrictions on military size, the German people got pissed off and backed a radical militarist who promised a struggle to reclaim what Germany had lost.
This is like calling someone who believes that the Twin Towers went down because airplanes hit them a "conspiracy theorist."
Make up your mind, Fan. Am I an "anarchist" or a "Nazi"?
We don't actually think you are either of those things. Those are nicknames we give to ignorant hate-filled trolls who say things like "Fuck the military", "Fuck America", and "Keep sucking the mutilated penis of your local rabbi, shabbat goyim.". Also, yes, you are a conspiracy theorist. You have some reading to do on yourself:
Sorry Johnny, I don't need to read some fucking article to know that "conspiracies" are things premeditated in secret. I made no such claim about the World Wars. I made an argument about paths of causality based upon facts that are open to the public and uncontested in the mainstream.
Refusing to read a Wikipedia article? This is why you fail.
Not all "conspiracy theories" literally entail a conspiracy. Failure to wrap your head around that idea is not my problem. Additionally, let us say it is not and pretend your premise is somehow legitimate. Okay, then, where is your citation from reputable sources that say WW2 was caused by America?
The trolls on this site are really weak and boring :(
Like this jake guy.
"Not all 'conspiracy theories' literally entail a conspiracy"
So you admit that your label is just an agitprop meme used to c ow the ignorant masses. I think I have proven my point.
"So you admit that your label is just an agitprop meme used to c ow the ignorant masses."
Nope, never said that. Again, your inability to understand that not all conspiracy theories entail a literal conspiracy is not my problem, son.
"I think I have proven my point."
There is such a thing as giving me too much to work with. You don't "think", you don't know what "proven" means, and you never had a "point".
Speaking of not having a point, did you drop the "America caused WWII" argument already? So sad.
"never said that"
You actually did. You said that "Not all 'conspiracy theories' literally entail a conspiracy" Which means that your retarded label has NO meaning in reality.
"not all conspiracy theories entail a literal conspiracy"
Yeah. This is an admission that your label is dishonest on a fundamental level.
"Speaking of not having a point, did you drop the "America caused WWII" argument already?"
I made the argument already in previous posts. If you are too stupid to parse it, that is not my problem.
"Yeah. This is an admission that your label is dishonest on a fundamental level."
"Yeah. This is an admission that your label is dishonest on a fundamental level."
Are you being paid to put words in my mouth? I actually linked you an article explaining what conspiracy theories are as recognized in the real world. Try to keep up, will you?
"I made the argument already in previous posts. If you are too stupid to parse it, that is not my problem."
And I asked for citation on that argument. So far none has been provided, which implies you have given up on trying to prove such a claim. Ergo, you never had a point on your conspiracy theory about America causing WW2 due to being involved in the last year of WW1 to begin with. Do some research before you commit yourself to unfounded beliefs because otherwise, as is the case today, you look like an idiot, son.
Also flipping through dictionaries for obscure words, or worse having wasted a lifetime obsessing over obscure words as to commit them to memory, does not make you smart. Wordsmithing is creative but not a measure of wisdom or knowledge. In your case, however, you are not being creative but deliberately cryptic.
"You said that "Not all 'conspiracy theories' literally entail a conspiracy" Which means that your retarded label has NO meaning in reality."
Not all phrases mean what the individual words composing the phrase literally mean. Sorry you are too stupid to understand that.
Hey John K I know your on my side but by replying to the racist Nazi troll your just empowering him further and the chain of replies will never end. And I find it kind of funny hes on this site when Brad has said multiple times that he hates nazis.
Read the book, Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World by Margaret MacMillan. It goes into great detail about the negotiations between Britain, France an America at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 that ultimately resulted in the drafting of the Treaty of Versailles.
"an article explaining what conspiracy theories are as recognized in the real world."
Well if the masses use a label, it must be totally accurate and not a bullshit propaganda term. You know, like when fans of Fox News call Barak Obama a Marxist Muslim - that's what people "in the real world" understand "Marxist" to mean, therefore Obama is a Marxist, right?
"Also flipping through dictionaries for obscure words"
What word did I use that you think to be obscure? I'm sorry if I have a larger vocabulary than you, but you don't need to project you own penchant for social posturing onto me.
I just realized that my comments do assert an honest-to-God conspiracy. The conspiracy in the chain of command of the allied military forces to stop the fighting at 11:00 o'clock. This is a conspiracy believed in by all all mainstream historical sources, and by Max Power himself. But I'm the fucking whack job for believing that Germany being so completely defeated secured the insane treaty conditions at Versailles.
Our theater sucks and doesn't have this movie, not sure if we will but I found one in Oxnard that does so I'm off to watch it here soon.
BTW Brad, Jamie Bell is in Filth, he's the rookie at the police station.
I am actually a little surprised that he forgot that. Also, Jaime Bell's Edgar was my favorite character during the first half of Snowpiercer.
I really enjoyed this movie. Sure, I sometimes got taken out of the movie when I could not help but try to work out the mechanics of the whole thing (Where do the kids go when they are not in school? Do they have to walk through the sauna or the party car? Why were our characters spending so much time in the classroom anyways?), but I had to keep reminding myself that it probably was not meant to be taken literally. If I could treat the movie can be a satirical and allegorical (and gory) metaphor that is stretched out just slightly past the point of actual applicability, then I could firmly enjoy it. That would also explain some of the more outlandish acting styles for some of the actors. There are parts that are so over-the-top that there is no way that we are supposed to take them seriously and other parts that are so bleak that it is pointless to get hung up on details. These parts may not exactly come together smoothly, but maybe they were not supposed to.
I honestly don't know what Weinstein could have cut out of it or why he wanted to trim it down in the first place. It had apparently done well in South Korea and France, where the original comic was written. It may very well have done very well in other places as (very) well. Maybe he thought that it was too depressing or darkly humorous for a mainstream release in the United States, but that would suggest a lack of confidence in the movie. And, while Snowpiercer may have had some flaws or things that could be difficult to digest, I would say that it is the first English Language movie from an Asian director (not counting Ang Lee) in a while that seems like a genuinely solid movie and not some kind of awkward experimental toe-dipping into the English Language market. The translator machine was a cute way to allow for Korean characters to be there and speak Korean, though the daughter's English did sound kind of like phonetic line reading.
Yes the practicality of how the train worked kept bugging me too. If they had explained that maybe the train was double-decker and there were other levels I would have accepted that as enough explanation.
I loved this movie, it reminded me of a Terry Gilliam movie and I don't know how you could have cut it.
Having the cars be double-decker or with a corridor may have made practical sense, but it would have undercut the notion of the rebels moving through these different worlds within the train. So I could accept the need to sacrifice a bit of realism, though sometimes it was difficult.
Hey, Brad. Do you know Ehren Kruger is penning a Dumbo remake?
Oh boy now the crows will be even more racist!
Not to brag, but got to take a train to an outdoor screening of this film outside Austin, Bong Joon Ho was in attendance for a short Q and A. One thing he reveled was Tilda Swinton's character originally intended to be a guy, but then he changed his mind. They even handed out protein cubes (which were nasty just like in the film) for us audience members.
Bong Joon Who?
Ahh, the "Monster"...I see. Yeah, now I remember....
Argh, I'm so torn! On the one hand, I'm glad that Snowpiercer is awesome (because now I'm definitely going to make an effort to go see it), but on the other hand, it means that to avoid spoilers I can't watch the rest of the review until I've seen the movie. And Dave's in this review – he's tied with Jake as my favourite! WANT TO WATCH SO BAD.
(How sad has my life become that my main motivator to see this movie as soon as possible is because I can't wait to watch an internet review of it?)
Honestly it isn't as spoiler-y as the other midnight screenings, so you'll still be fine watching the whole thing. But if you want to be safe just watch the first half of the review and stop when the first commercial begins.
That said Snowpiercer is definitely one of the best movies this year (yeah I know it came out lat year, but still), and I hope you do get the chance to see it.
'Dog Fucker Dave'? Nah doesn't sound right. How about 'Pervert Dave'? That sounds better. Just ask Pervert Dave's dog 'Sad Jeff'.
Do these guys always spoil a lot plotpoints and nonchalantly spoil the ending with little discussion just cuz fuck you? And then tell you to go support the movie and watch it?
What's the point? They could easily discuss things without adding addendums like, "The protein bars....are made from bugs! After the guy collects all them drugs to make that bomb.....Everyone Dies! etc etc
Welcome to my site! Congratulations on seeing your very first Midnight Screening video!
Don't watch a 40 minute vlog of a movie if you don't want spoilers! =)
Hey Brad! How do you like my name? Cool huh? =)
I skimmed through a couple other vlogs; Can/Should I expect major spoilers on the 18 minute, 20 minute, 35 minute vlogs with your crew or is it strictly your 40 minute ones? Where is the line drawn?
You should always expect spoilers. Don't watch a gigantic video review of something if you don't want spoilers. It's probably going to happen no matter what site you go to. Stick to spoiler free articles.
But if you at least want to know if we like the movie or not, watch the first couple minutes; we make it clear early on what our thoughts on the movies are.
Yeah, I watch this show because I'm one of those guys who hardly ever goes to the movie theatre; usually by the time I watch a new movie my friends have already spoiled the entire movie for me (and they do it in a way that's not entertaining at all).
This show keeps me up to date on the basic gist of newer movies, while entertaining me at the same time, and I LOVE IT.
I watched the original cut of the movie a few months ago when it came out here, and I absolutely hated it. I went into it really wanting to like it: I thought the trailer was good (they knew to put the one good scene from the movie into it - the one with the rifle), I love Chris Evans, and I didn't read any reviews (not that there were many out there at the time). But as soon as Tilda Swinton came in, I knew what I was in for: pretentious trash that tries to combine dark comedy with serious action and social commentary a la Verhoven, and falls completely on its face.
People complain that this movie isn't more popular because it's not Hollywood enough. I actually thought this movie is thoroughly Hollywood-y in its spirit: the same trying too hard to be artsy direction, the same incomprehensible fight scenes, the same false moral equivalence between two sides. It has become all too popular recently for plots to be about how people fighting oppression are just as bad as their oppressors or "we're the real monsters" or all sorts of crap like that. I certainly didn't think it was unpredictable: I knew what the ending will be like pretty much 10 minutes into it (that very subtle "when we get to the front, we won't be like them" foreshadowing helped a bit).
Honestly, this kinda feels to me like Tree of Life for a slightly different audience: there's nothing to it, but there's a lot of graphic violence and misery porn, and it appeals to certain people's outlook, so it gets positive reviews. And it's fine if you enjoyed it; let's just not pretend there's anything profound about it. This is a style-over-substance movie through and through.
I did not get that impression at all. The dark comedy seemed to me to be more of an acknowledgment that the entire premise was goofy, so they decided to have fun with it at times and make things over the top hammy instead of trying to graft something profound onto it.
I see what you're saying, but the movie is too joyless for me to believe that. There are hilarious moments in this movie, but given how grey and somber everything is, it seems to me to be unintentional. Although, if you enjoyed the movie on that level, I can see why you would.
I thought that Jamie Bell's character was pretty amusing, and there is no way that Tilda Swinton's character or Allison Pill's character could be considered to be unintentionally funny. Unfunny? Maybe. Unintentionally funny? Absolutely not. And the Koreans leads were kind of funny in a dry sort of way.
I honestly forgot about Allison Pill being in this movie. Anyway, I didn't think either character you mentioned was funny. Swinton was embarrassing, the best example of the movie's tone-deafness, and the scene with Allison Pill was just excruciating, to the point where I actually considered walking out when the kids started singing. I will say, though, that the engineer guy made me chuckle once or twice when he was first introduced.
Very well, then.
Seen it in theatre when it was released a bajillion years ago (I live in belgium), I like it, but in a so stupid it's fun kinda way... An Independance day kinda way... And I certainly wouldn't say of this movie that it is a science fiction movie...
oh fuck... don't want to be that guy but the guns fell silent on the armsitace at 11/11/1918 at 11 but i think fighting continued in Africa between the Germans and the British and there was peace and football game in 1914 on christmas day I think it only happened once.. not sure about all of them taking a pause at that time on November the 11th
Damnit, WHY ISN'T THIS PLAYING IN MY CITY YET????
And I'm in F'ing Toronto, ON, which you'd THINK would qualify as a big enough city for a limited release, but NOOOOOO....
in France, it was released last march on direct to DVD...
Daniel Bruhl was in a movie called Merry Christmas (Joyeux Noël) about the impromptu WWI ceasefire. It was a little corny and predictable, but I quite enjoyed it.
The movie was released last september in france.
Global Warming?! Well, I guess this IS science fiction.
Even the founder of The Weather Channel says it's a crock of shit.
Besides, we only just got out of a record setting winter IN MAY!
Easy there bro.
Global Warming didn't cause the post apocalyptic world in Snowpiercer; it was a man made experiment the was made to counteract a global warming effect. The experiment backfires and causes an ice age.
There, now you can go see this film without the fear that it'll may your viewpoints cry. Also, there's not really a Snowpiercer train in real life, cause, you know, the movie isn't real. Shhhhhh.
As for global warming, I'm sure one day you'll look up its definition.
One of the best movies of the past 10 years. Went to this totally unprepared.
Also about the "celebrating the new years eve" scene. I belive yoy were referring to the 1914 Christmas truce, between German and British troops. There was a movie about it called "Joex nouel" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424205/
The black and white being converted from color might be intentional and make sense because of the plot of the book. In the book everyone has been brainwashed to not be able to see color by the future dystopian government and the Giver is one of the few people alive from the time before things were like that and he gives the protagonist the ability to see color.
There are literally passages of the book where the person says that once they see the color they realize that it seems like it has been there the entire time and they can't believe they didn't notice it so I think maybe it could be somewhat intentional. In any case they didn't make it black and white just to be pretentious.
That's exactly what they're doing, later in the trailer there are scenes that are in color. So yeah, they're totally going straight off of the book.
But I question their ability to successfully represent the other internal struggles... I'm worried they might just get a narrator for that.
Am i the only one who thought the Axe Gang in this movie were terrifying? That music..
I heard Frank Grillo is playing the lead in the American remake of The Raid.
Loved this movie. The very end, I don't know if the polar bear is supposed to be a symbol of hope, but sadly what I thought was that that bear just spotted its next meal, which makes the film even darker.
I like to think it's the writers going, "Oh wait, we forgot about all those animals that can survive in the cold! Sorry everyone."
I watched it last month, and man, this movie is god awful. Not saying that it's the worst but it's really BAD. There are too much plot holes and nonsensical things.
Why a TRAIN? Why does the rail road still kept intact? Who designed this train so stupidly (obvious convenience for child abuse plot)? How do they even suppose to make thing recyclable? Axe gang?! (Who TF are they???)
And that evil guy that never die. Also, all drugscum are allowed to live yet the other poor ppl have to do stuff?!?!?