Why can't we be friends?
Have you seen 'The Guest', Brad?
It's Adam Wingard's next film, although it's 80s through and through. At least, that's what it tries to be. I personally hated it myself, but a lot of people loved it, so I'm wondering what you think about it.
He actually mentioned that before, more then once, and said that it was amazing so I'd take it he liked it. He brought it up towards the end of the woman in black: angel of death midnight screening.
He said he loved it in the Woman In Black 2 review.
Ah, I missed that then. Thanks for pointing it out.
Anyone else notice the Halloween 3 masks projected on the wall at the halloween dance?
Enough with The Guest already!
I hope he checks out Cold in July too. It's also an 80s throwback movie with Michael C. Hall, Don Johnson, and an amazing John Carpenter-style score.
You not liking Inherent Vice too much, was a bit of a surprise. What little we get to see of your personality through the site would indicate that if ever there was a movie you'd love, this was it.
On a side note, watched "The Guest" because of your remarks in a previous video. That was entertaining as all hell! Just proves once again that it takes intelligent people to make a truly great "dumb" movie.
Brad's Worst of 2014 predictions:
1. Endless Love
2. Think Like A Man Too
3. Tyler Perry's The Single Mom's Club
5. Mom's Night Out
6. Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return
8. God's Not Dead
9. The Identical
10. A Haunted House 2 or Left Behind
May not necessarily be in that order, but this seems like most of the big contenders. The Best list will probably have The Lego Movie, Gone Girl, The Babadook, The Raid 2, Interstellar and John Wick, among others. It looks like Brad liked Saving Christmas too much to put it on the Worst list, though it'll probably be on Jake's list.
Don't forget Snowpiercer! I know Brad said in a couple of Q&A panels that the movie was his favorite of 2014, but that might have changed.
Whoops, you're right, and I also forgot Edge of Tomorrow and Birdman. A Million Ways to Die in the West is also a candidate for the Worst list.
Paul Thomas Anderson fanboys are the fucking WORST.
Tarantino and Nolan fanboys are worse.
Directors I've caught the most hell for not liking one of their movies: Terrence Malick, Zack Snyder, and Christopher Nolan. I didn't like Death Proof, and that didn't even come close to the uproar of those other director's movies.
Yeah, but even most Tarantino fans agree that Death Proof is his worst. Now, if you'd hated something like Django Unchained, you'd probably have been eviscerated (though, in fairness, it would still be better than the MOS flaming).
Fanboys on any director are the kind of the reason I stay far, far away from message boards in the first place.
In all honesty, yeah, I agree that Paul Thomas Anderson fanboys are terrible. But you should take a look at either Christopher Nolan fanboys or Danny Boyle fanboys! They're worse! Now mind you, I love The Dark Knight and 127 Hours, directed by Nolan and Boyle, respectively, but goddamn, if you say anything negative or average about these films, they'll assault you instantly!
Even fanboys of bad directors, like Michael Bay fanboys, will assault you if you don't like the Transformers movies. Hell, I personally hate the Transformers movies, and in all honesty, Dark of the Moon is the worst, and I'm not planning on seeing Age of Extinction, but Jesus Christ, these fanboys will assassinate you if you say anything negative or average about these movies. I actually made a few trap videos on my TVBRetro account on those hideous movies, and they send in death threats, making immature mom jokes, act like 5-year-olds, etc. Trust me, they are insane!
Oh, Jesus. The Nolan fanboys make PTA's look sane and well adjusted. Don't get me started on them,
I'll be the first to say I'm not a Nolan fan, let alone a fanboy, but Batman Begins is one of my favorite comic films. Just like MoS it wasn't perfect (no movie is) & even had things that pissed me off, but over all I love it. The Dark Knight on the other hand, while I'll NEVER say it sucks but it sure is overrated. We all know why so let's not go there. But everybody is good in the film except, ironically, Bale as Batman. His Wayne is great, if not a little stiff sometimes, but his voice was so humorously irritating. He sounded cool in Begins, why'd he make it worse?!
Is it a good movie? Sure. The "best comic book film ever" or whatever critics say? Eh, not in my book. Call me whatever insult you deem worthy, but I love Daredevil more than The Dark Knight . . .
Oh, one more thing. Since Nolan has all the praise in the world for his trilogy, can everybody forgive Schumacher for Batman & Robin & move on with their lives? I have. Don't forget it wasn't 100% his fault. The studio heads, producers, hell even the public is to blame. Let's go back in time to the '89 film. Burton made it dark, brooding & atmospheric to get away from the scent of the 60's show. He succeeds. WB makes the mistake of allowing him total control for Returns & what happens? Ooh, it's too scary for the kiddies! So Schumacher gets the 3rd, making it more bright & less violent (though I still prefer his Gotham Cities to it just being Chicago). It's a big hit with everybody, it's more family friendly. So we got the 4th one. Suddenly everybody hates Schumacher, so on & so on.
So yeah, he's not the droid you're looking for so move along . . . please.
Not to mention Wes Anderson fanboys...
Really? They seem to be fairly mild to me most of the time. They may say that you don't get it or that the movie is not for you, but I've never seen one go over the top like a Nolan fan will.
Anyone's better than Nolan's rabid fans (I say this as someone who has enjoyed all of the films he directed, even TDKR), but Wes' fans can get vicious, generally depending on the specific film you're criticizing. Life Aquatic won't draw a big reaction, but God help you if you say a word against Moonrise Kingdom.
Nolan fans are by far the worst because they're all teenage boys who think they are intellectuals. because they think no one else understands Nolan film. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE NOT UNDERSTAND NOLAN FILMS. HE FUCKING SHOWS YOU WHAT JUST HAPPENED AND THEN TELLS YOU WHAT JUST HAPPENED IN ENDLESS EXPOSITION TO MAKE SURE YOU CAN'T FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT JUST HAPPENED. SHORT OF BEATING YOU OVER THE HEAD WITH A BIG HAMMER AND SCREAMING THIS WHAT JUST HAPPENED AND THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS FOR TWO HOURS, HIS FILMS COULD NOT BE MORE OVER EXPLAINED. WE GET NOLAN FILMS. SOME OF US JUST DON'T LIKE THEM.
I'm a PTA fanboy. Boogie Nights is the movie that made me interested in studying film and getting into screenwriting and filmmaking, and I can be accused of "liking it just because Paul Thomas Anderson's name is on it," as Brad had mentioned in the video.
That said...I'm still unsure about Inherent Vice myself, though (and I swear this is not me being a defensive fanboy) I think the problem with the movie mainly lies with the novel it is adapted from. I've read the book twice in preparation for this movie, and seen the movie once, and I still have no real idea about what the hell happened in this story.
Why do people hate me so much?
Yes, the stuff that happened in the courtroom apparently actually did happen. How it looked IRL I don't know, but Walter Keane was truly insane. With psychopathy.
Yeah, he sure as hell was psychopathic (with perhaps a touch of psychotic) .... He absolutely -terrorized- that poor family.
Inherent Vice? more like Incoherent Vice! Yeah, movie kinda sucked. Only scene I liked was when Bigfoot was eating pancakes at an Asian eatery, yelling for more pancakes. but wow did this film suck.
I bet Inherent Vice was popular out here in Colorado. Also about internet commenters and fanboys. Someone need to make a movie about 7 internet commenters locked in the same room. It would be interesting to see how they would act if they were forced to interact face to face and own up to any past comments they have made.
i like the preview stillshot for this video
the trailer was great because it looked like the big lebowski style.
the big lebowski was amazing because it was just there, man to be enjoyed it was dark it was muted it was laid back. this movie was as if the scenery and colors were like nic cage's acting: it was like the scenery was eating the scenery it wanted to be noticed so bad. and when that wasn't happening all the actors were filmed with close-ups. plus it needed sam Elliot to do the voice-over. the best scene in movie bigfoot telling doc Shasta is gone and doc asking is she dead or is she gone. that was a big lebowski-esque scene
I would have seen Big Eyes this weekend, but it disappeared from my local theater since last week. That was annoying.
Instead, I checked out Taken 3 on Saturday. Yup. It sucked.
I downloaded the screener of Inherent Vice and watched it this afternoon (don't crucify me, it isn't playing in my town). I didn't have any problems with the plot. I read that it was complicated before I saw it, so I did my best to pay close attention. Plus I had the luxury of rewinding if I missed a line of dialogue. If you can remember the characters' names and who they are, then it isn't all that difficult. But I can entirely understand why someone wouldn't like it. I'd say it is worth a second viewing if you got lost. I really enjoyed it.
In all honesty Brad, if you had read the book "Inherent Vice" before seeing the movie, you would have liked it more. If you have ever heard of the author of the book, Thomas Pynchon, he is considered one of the greatest living writers, and his novels are usually dense and complex novels, filled with many many MANY characters, obscure pop culture references, and the novels usually involve multiple sub plots and conspiracy theories. From what I have seen from people who have seen the movie, most people who either hated or "didn't get" the movie, haven't read the book, and the people who have read it love the film. Like I said, the book is extremely complex and dense and full with many different sub plots and vignettes, Pynchon is an acquired taste, and knowing that you love obscure references towards pop culture and movies, I figure you would LOVE Pynchon if you gave him a chance at some point. with that being said, PTA did take ALOT out of the book for the movie, mostly parts that he connected rather greatly by adding them to already important events within the movie. he took out parts that would have made the movie seem even MORE padded than what you thought it already was around the second half of the film. but, yet again, that s the difference between literature and film, two different mediums that need adjusting when telling a story. Anyway, I feel if you had read the book before seeing it, the plot would have made more sense to you, because, like you said in this review, the story is pretty confusing.
I would really appreciate to hear your feedback on this Brad, it would mean a lot to me :D
In other words: It's the old "you only get to enjoy / understand / appreciate the movie if you do your 'homework' first" again.
Are you fucking kidding me?
If you can't make a movie that works as an independent work of art by itself, without abusing the book it's based on as an "instruction manual" the audience has to have at the ready to look things up every two minutes, you have failed as a filmmaker. End of story! There's a reason why awards for things like "Best Adapted Screenplay" exist in this world...
Sorry for being rude, but if I have to hear that non-argument one more time, I'm going to make it into the evening news. And not in a good way, Jeebus Crocoduck on a pogo stick!
calm down, dude. I'm just saying it as it is. PTA Eva said himself that he wanted to be faithful to the book. I'm saying the story IS complex and dense, but there are ALOT of things in the book that made te story seem more coherent than it appears in the movie. that's what I'm saying. and besides, that's just your opinion. when it says best adapted screenplay they obviously have to compare the script version to the actual book, because if they don't, how else can they tell if it is a good or "best" adaption????
You shouldn't need to do homework to make a movie good, it should stand completely on it's own. If it doesn't then you failed to make a good movie and you failed even harder to make a good adaptation.
You immediately lose an argument if you utter the sentence or some variation of "You would have liked it if you read the book".
okay, you are both obviously missing the point of what I was trying to say. I'm not saying that EVERY adaption from a book to a movie has to be read first in order to fully understand or like the movie version, I was just saying it would have seem a little more coherent and understable where the plot was going if he had. like I said, the book goes far more into detail about the plot, and PTA changed a lot of that because there is a lot more shit going on in the book. so please, stop trying to make this retarded misconception that I'm saying all adapted movies have to read the subject material first to understand it, this one would have made it a little easier considering, like I said, the story is very complex and dense.
You know what would be funny? If someone tried it the other way, releasing a book that makes no sense without seeing some movies first.
Brad has said that he isn't a big reader. But who knows, you've made Thomas Pynchon sound like an interesting author.
Even with that said, reading the book would not help one understand the movie, for the both exist in separate universes. Sure it can be faithful to the book, but that does not mean everything is going to be the same or that they are both going to give the same answers.
What about Frankenweenie? I thought you liked that when you saw it with Jake in 2012? I thought it was a pretty good movie and a good return to form for Tim Burton.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. That was a really good flick.
Now, the reception of Inherent Vice absolute fascinates me, and I haven't even seen it yet. film critics almost all said the same things you did-- it's too hard to follow. Fans of the book all said that it was too easy to follow. Fans of the author hate the book because it's too easy to follow. It's like this massive ouroboros of condescension and pretension, which is of course expected, considering the fact that its a PT Anderson film based on a Thomas Pynchon novel. If you think PTA fans are annoying, you've never met a Pynchon fan.
What do you think of Christoph playing Blofeld in SPECTRE Brad?
Speaking of whiplashes, are you ever gonna review Whiplash? Assuming it came to Springfield or not.
You talked me out of seeing Inherent Vice Brad. Thanks for saving me some money.
I wholeheartedly agree with your thoughts on Big Eyes but I was so pleased with seeing a genuinely good Tim Burton film again, I let the problems go and named it one of my favorites of the year. But I'm glad you brought up Lovelace, that's a movie I was thinking about recently. Lovelace is certainly seedier but both are about women being abused for so long and finally standing up for themselves and by extension their art, which I think is a rather good story.
How are you planning to do with the best/worst videos? I quite enjoyed the formula used for the 2013 worst list with the two sets of dynamic duos. I felt that worked better as it allowed each person to adequately describe the movie they saw. The longer the videos the better as far as I am concerned.
YES! I'm hoping that all of Team Snob gets to voice out their worst of 2014 lists, including Sarah because I think she might have seen just as many bad films (not sure though) but it's always great getting to hear her opinions.
As one artist to another ..... I wouldn't mind hearing some of Dave's thoughts on 'Big Eyes' as well (part. the business/thievery/control of your work aspects).
Man, I have never ever commented but I have to get my words out about this movie cause I just saw it today and it's been on my mind. So I'm a fan of both Paul Thomas Anderson and Thomas Pynchon. I read the book and thought it was both funny and poignant at times. People will throw around the term "Pynchon-Lite" and it is compared to the works that came before but it doesn't make it bad, at all. And you don't HAVE to have read the book to get the movie, because, i'm gonna be polarizing, this movie was pretty...unfocused? Like, I'm going to probably watch it again, but this already seems like Paul Thomas Anderson's weakest film. Its like he was trying to capture the novel while also attempting something like a Cheech and Chong movie as well as The Bib Lebowski and, as you said, LA Confidential. But I feel like he skipped out on some of the more poignant moments of the book, such as Pynchon's politics, etc. Still, that might not have made the movie any better. I enjoyed what I saw, I was laughing a few times even, and thought it looked good too but, overall, it was a big disappointment.
I also totally understand what you mean by the soundtrack, cause it either was too loud or not loud enough or it was just plain distracting. The movie was too ambitious to be the slapstick comedy that Anderson seemed to want to make but not ambitious enough to be the novel. And before people get on my ass about it, I'm going to see it again and try to separate my experience with the novel, and my love of Pynchon's work, and try to engage the movie as a movie and not an extension of the book.
Also, Brad, Anderson actually trimmed a lot from the book but I also felt that this was a 2 and a half hour film that could've been shorter. The scene where Shasta is naked and just talking seemed to take forever and I found myself struggling to care really. I wish I could take a more definite stance too, and maybe it seems like I have but I'm really in the middle of the road for this movie. I've been excited for it for quite some time and, overall, it seemed just like a mess of a movie. Not a bad mess, but still really messy considering Anderson's track record. Anyways, I might have more to say later about this, but I'm curious to talk about it. I' not sure what I'd trim and what I'd keep. It is a little hard to follow though the book itself is fairly linear, especially compared to his other works, but, yeah, this movie just kinda lingers there for a bit.
They should have played up the humor in Big Eyes, played down the surreal stuff. Even the name is a mistake.
You like Double Toasted? I knew you would.
seriously, im a hetero guy,and am i the only one that think brad is kinda cute now adays? i dont mean that ina negative way but when he smiles hes kinda cute...you know
He does have a great smile. :)
Big Eyes was the first Burton movie that wish was more Burtony. What a total bore.
Brad, you still need to see Selma, Foxcatcher, Whiplash and Etan Hawke's Premonition.
Same thoughts on Inherit Vice. A very failed, unique cool movie.
I swear I wrote this review of "Inherent Vice" before I saw this.
You said: "I probably should have done drugs before I went to go see this movie, maybe, I dunno. I kinda feel like I was on some while I was watching this, so maybe that would have been unnecessary"
"I think I got a contact high from watching this, as I'm pretty sure this is a stoner film disguised as a private detective flick. The characters and performances are enjoyable, and it's reasonably funny. The story won't appeal to everyone. As for me... I'll let you know if I figure it out. It really seemed to be an overly complex way for a girl to hook back up with her ex. It suffers from having a narrator, IMO, which I guess is better than exposition (ie, characters telling each other stuff they already know), but given some of the details are single seemingly throw-away narration lines you have to be paying attention. I guess I liked it, but more for the performances than the film itself. 7 / 10"
What if Paul Thomas Anderson and Paul W.S. Anderson switched movies they directed? I would love to see P. T. Anderson do Resident Evil.
I loved Big Eyes. It was nice to see a Tim Burton movie that did feel like something similar to Big Fish because it was so dissimilar to his usual stuff, like Big Fish. I really wanted to like Tim Burton again, and this gave it to me. And Waltz was just so goddamn charming, I want to hate him but I couldn't with that damn shit eating grin of his.
you're gonna be at Magfest as well? awesome. if you have any free time, I'd like to challenge you and/or Jake to Killer Instinct at the arcades. that is if he plans to be there. what do you say Brad? are you up for the challenge?
I agree with points you had with Inherent Vice, and I didn't love it but I still enjoyed it a lot until maybe the last 15 minutes or so when it lost me a bit. My main problem was honestly just the confusing plot, and some of the minor issues you had with the soundtrack. 30 minutes in I stopped being able to follow along with it. I just really enjoyed the characters and the ambiance of the 1970's LA enviornment. I also agree that the first half was a lot better than the second, but everytime that Josh Brolin was on screen man....he was gold.I'd say it was better than The Master which I didn't like as much as his other films. But it left an impression on me too. Big Eyes on the other hand I didn't like. I thought there was a lot of unecessary things with the plot (like Jason Schwartzman's character randomly popping up just so he can have more screeentime) and I really didn't care for the screenplay or characters. Christoph Waltz I disagree with you about cause I thought he was just over the top AS HELL. I mean my god I love the guy but towards the end when he's doing all the courtroom shenanigans I was just like come on man just tone it down. He was seriously overacting for me and that's the main reason I didn't care for the film, along with the tonal shifts you mentioned which really took me out of the movie.
My plan for this weekend was to see Big Eyes, but on Saturday, when I checked the showtimes, I learned that it had already been pulled from my local theater.
So, instead, I saw Taken 3.
I just got back from seeing Inherent Vice with the boyfriend, and I kind of felt the same way about it as you in the end, Brad - though, oddly enough, almost by exact opposite proportions. For the first half or so I was just kind of sitting there, occasionally leaning over and whispering "what the hell are we watching?", but it didn't really GET really funny and entertaining to me until it reached about the second half (which is about where Martin Short came in, I think, so we do agree that he was really funny).
In that way I guess I appreciate that it was so long, because it took me a long time to warm up to the tone, but at the same time, I agree that it FELT as long as it was, which is not a good thing in this case (unlike, say, a Wolf of Wall Street type deal, where the feeling of length is part of the point). Like you, I didn't HATE it, but I certainly didn't love it - somewhere right in between. There were way too many disparate aspects of the plot that just didn't seem to be relevant or tie into anything for my taste.
That said, I know my boyfriend loved it, and I can definitely understand what's to love about it. It just wasn't TOTALLY for me, although like I said, I didn't hate it, and I'm glad I saw it. I'll need to see some more PTA movies - the only other one I've seen is There Will Be Blood, which is one of my favorite movies of the last decade.
(Also, looking forward to finally seeing Big Eyes on Thursday.)
From what I heard about Big Eyes, they actually toned down the courtroom antics and it was way wackier in real life. I need to look it up for the confirm but it;s what Tim Burton said on the Daily Show.
First Brad, I was really happy to hear you mention the boys at Double Toasted and I don't know why.
I have watched both Big Eyes and Inherent Vice and I liked both of them but I liked Inherent Vice much more and I have no idea why. It's funny, I saw Vice about a week and a half ago and I haven't been able to shake it out of my head. The only time I was able to focus on another movie was when I watched The Guest which is Top 10 of 2014 easy.
Nonetheless, I really did like Vice. It was a faithful adaptation to a novel that is just as weird and confusing. However, I can definitely see, as you can, if some people hate this movie.
I loved Inherent Vice, but it's not one of his best films, if that makes sense. It took me two views to really love it more than I did the first time. It's like... I haven't felt this way towards a PTA flick since Hard Eight - by that I mean coming out of it not putting it way up in my favorites of the year (yes, even The Master). I'm gonna get it on blu-ray to see it again as well.
PS: Brad, you listen to Double Toasted? I do as well. Nice to see film-review worlds collide.
Hey, we're planning the DVD release of Inherent Vice and we'd like to use your blurb on the box cover.
"Inherent Vice is... what is certainly something."