Movie/TV recommendations

[Nachimir]

Yeah, really good, and I've never been much of a Doctor Who fan. Though what was it with Amy Pond's giant rhetorical fists of ham at the ending tonight? I felt like I was going to have an aneurysm if she repeated the phrase "crying children" any more times as she over explained the space whale some more.

[elmuerte]

oh right... keep forgetting Dr Who started again.

[James]

Kick-Ass

I didn't feel Kick-Ass really justified the whole child-committing-horrible-violence thing. Does this mean I'm becoming a Daily Mail reader type of guy? It's not that I flat-out object to the idea of it being in a film, or that I have any problem with the actress participating in it (or the swearing, for that matter), but it seems to me that if you want to tread on such provocative territory, you have to have something to say about it, which as far as I could tell the film did not. There is one thirty-second bit of dialogue where a single character acknowledges that the girl is having her childhood robbed from her, and that what her father is doing is deeply twisted, to which there is no response and no further reference is made. I don't mind messed up films (I liked Happiness, for example), but it seems exploitative to have that kind of stuff in there just because somebody thought it was a cool idea (like the monster rape scene in one of those Hills Have Eyes remakes). Perhaps I'm a massive prude or inconsistent or something.

Anyway, I didn't hate Kick-Ass by any means, but I don't find the concept of a child slicing people up inherently funny (although the training bit at the beginning is pretty funny, which might say something disturbing about me: violence committed by children is bad, but violence visited on children is good?), and the film doesn't seem to have anything meaningful to say in general. Not that all films have to have a message, by any means, but if you start out with the borderline accusatory tone of the opening rhetorical question – why doesn't anyone choose to be a hero? – it seems to me that you've set yourself up to directly address the audience. But the film (as with most superhero stories) is concerned almost exclusively with vigilante violence, and it gets less realistic as it goes on. It starts out in something approximating our world, deliberately contrasting itself with the world of super-powers and so on, but ends up with

a jetpack

. I kind of feel like you can't have it both ways.

Mark Millar has said that he feels the film shows more consequence to the violence than most action films, as the lead spends six months in hospital. Whilst I agree that it's a good thing that he is shown to be vulnerable, all we see of the six months is Kick-Ass emerging at the other end

with the pseudo-superpower of reduced pain sensitivity

. What I don't feel there is much of is psychological consequence. Nobody seems especially disturbed by the horrendous things that take place. Upset, perhaps, but nothing in the long term.

The friend I saw it and I agreed that the film might have been improved had either Kick-Ass or Hit Girl died. That could have gone some interesting places regarding the consequences of violence, and they still could have made a martyr of the character, perhaps inspiring people to intervene in more civilized ways, or something possibly less lame, I don't know.

From the same interview with Millar (the latest Five Live film review (not Kermode this week)) I learnt that the comic has a scene where it transpires that Big Daddy has given Hit Girl cocaine under the guise of some special super-scientific performance enhancing whatever. This was considered too much for the film, but think it might have actually have been better had it been included, as it would make it more clear that what the father is doing is some seriously messed up and extremely manipulative child abuse. Maybe that's the point of the film and it's just being very subtle about it, but I certainly didn't get that vibe. Or perhaps I'm unreasonable for expecting everything to have a moral component. I don't know.

This film has been recommended to me by pretty much everyone I meet. Even strangers have told me how good it is, unprompted. I find it strange that nobody has the same concerns I did, bar the friend I saw it with and, apparently, the Daily Mail reviewer, who I must emphasize I do not completely align with (he keeps going on about Hit Girl being sexualized, which I didn't see any of, for example; also, I wouldn't call the film "evil"). One way in which it could be valuable is as a way of drawing into relief our attitudes regarding adult violence – why am I OK with that if Hit Girl is such a big deal? I'm probably being a massive hypocrite and hugely unprogressive. I'm fine with murdering shedloads of guys in a computer game, but I have reservations if a little girl does it in a film. I guess I just don't find it cool or funny. Other parts were funny, though.

Also, this is yet another film where the love interest is barely even a character. I know the script was co-written by Jane Goldman, but this kind of stuff still seems pretty misogynistic. Then again, I don't know if girly films do the same with the male love interests. Perhaps it's just misanthropic. Either way, it's standard fare, and evokes a pained sigh from me every time, although that might partly be because I'm emotionally immature enough to feel uncomfortable about all that romantic stuff.

This, as with most of my long posts, is probably a horrible rambling mess. I look forward to having how wrong I am explained to me.

Edited April 11, 2010 by JamesM

[Patters]

Yeah I can see where you are coming from. Though for me Kick Ass is much more stylised violence opposed to horrific. I guess I don't have a problem with a little girl killing a ton of guys.

[Scrobbs]

Don't know if anyone is aware, but 'Treme' is starting tonight on HBO, from David Simon and Eric Overmeyer.

Bunk Moreland and Lester Freamon are in it too!

The series takes place three months after Hurricane Katrina where the residents of New Orleans, including musicians, chefs, Mardi Gras Indians, and ordinary New Orleanians try to rebuild their lives, their homes and their unique culture in the aftermath of the 2005 hurricane.

This could well be mint!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treme_%28TV_series%29

Thought I'd mention it, as there's loads of wire fans on here

[Nachimir]

I thought Kick Ass was fluffy and entertaining, but nothing had developed by the end of the film. The guy who runs my local games shop summed it up well: "Mark Millar doesn't do character development, he does extreme moments", and that's pretty much what the film consisted of.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Kick-Ass

I didn't feel Kick-Ass really justified the whole child-committing-horrible-violence thing. Does this mean I'm becoming a Daily Mail reader type of guy? It's not that I flat-out object to the idea of it being in a film, or that I have any problem with the actress participating in it (or the swearing, for that matter), but it seems to me that if you want to tread on such provocative territory, you have to have something to say about it, which as far as I could tell the film did not.

And THANK GOD they didn't! What a horrible disgusting film it would have been if it took all that stuff SERIOUSLY. (shudders) The film was a cartoon, nothing more. In the same way South Park is about a bunch of kids committing crimes, getting killed "for laughs", etc. Kick-Ass was very much in the same idiotic world.

If I didn't see it that way, I would be horrified to think that teenagers would identify with the lead character and attempt to become "super-heroes".

It's fluff, nothing more.

[James]

I guess I just don't get fluff, then.

I don't know, I suppose it was the presentation of the violence that separated it from fluff for me. I would say that South Park is generally actually about something other than violence and swearing, though.

I'll probably have to watch it again.

[Kolzig]

I happened to watch Super Mario Bros after ten or so years since last seeing it.

Holy crap it's bad. It's so bad that it's actually just bad. Nothing funny about it.

Mario Mario and Luigi "John Leguizamo" Mario. Nice nice.

[Sully907]

PBS masterpiece theatre just aired their remake of the diary of anne frank. Very tastefully done as always. A great watch, it's online now

http://video.pbs.org/video/1463581903

[Thyroid]

I'm watching Freaks and Geeks. It is extremely uncomfortable to watch, but I like it.

I also got into Doctor Who. Seen two episodes. "Blink" is great all around and, one or two moments aside, succeeds at everything it tries. "The Eleventh Hour" (Series 5, Episode One) is great too, but not on the same level. It's a little cheesy. Still, I liked it and I think I might continue watching the series as long as Steve Moffat's in charge.

[miffy495]

I'm watching Freaks and Geeks. It is extremely uncomfortable to watch, but I like it.

Huh. Weird coincidence. I'm just starting on that for the first time as well. My girlfriend ordered the series off Amazon, and since I've never seen it we're watching it together. 3 episodes in right now. Really good stuff. It's nice to see a pre-saturation Seth Rogen too. I started out liking him, but around ********* Express got pretty sick of him. Seeing him younger now is reminding me why I liked him in the first place. I should go back and watch some recent movies with him in them now to see if they really got steadily worse or if I just needed a break from him.

Breaking Bad was also in the order (she has a thing for Brian Cranston. Don't know why, but whatever) and I've heard really good about that too. I think once Freaks and Geeks is done we'll be watching that. Excited for it.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I guess I just don't get fluff, then.

I don't know, I suppose it was the presentation of the violence that separated it from fluff for me. I would say that South Park is generally actually about something other than violence and swearing, though.

I'll probably have to watch it again.

Yeah, the only line I didn't like in the film was the one you cited... It was far too serious for such a disturbing premise (at least for me). The only way I could enjoy it is taking it as a cartoon for adults.

[James]

Perhaps I'm behind the audiovisual times, but a lot of the presentation seemed to be semi-serious. When I reconstruct it in my mind, though, I can totally see it being cartoony. It may be that I was conditioned by my friend's reservations, which he (quietly) vocalized. Or it might just be my instinctive reaction to what was going on. I didn't find that element of it funny enough not to think about it in serious terms (other parts were sufficiently funny, however).

It sounds almost like we wanted it to go in completely opposite directions.

[Armchair General]

Kick-Ass

I didn't feel Kick-Ass really justified the whole child-committing-horrible-violence thing. Does this mean I'm becoming a Daily Mail reader type of guy? It's not that I flat-out object to the idea of it being in a film, or that I have any problem with the actress participating in it (or the swearing, for that matter), but it seems to me that if you want to tread on such provocative territory, you have to have something to say about it, which as far as I could tell the film did not. There is one thirty-second bit of dialogue where a single character acknowledges that the girl is having her childhood robbed from her, and that what her father is doing is deeply twisted, to which there is no response and no further reference is made. I don't mind messed up films (I liked Happiness, for example), but it seems exploitative to have that kind of stuff in there just because somebody thought it was a cool idea (like the monster rape scene in one of those Hills Have Eyes remakes). Perhaps I'm a massive prude or inconsistent or something.

Anyway, I didn't hate Kick-Ass by any means, but I don't find the concept of a child slicing people up inherently funny (although the training bit at the beginning is pretty funny, which might say something disturbing about me: violence committed by children is bad, but violence visited on children is good?), and the film doesn't seem to have anything meaningful to say in general. Not that all films have to have a message, by any means, but if you start out with the borderline accusatory tone of the opening rhetorical question – why doesn't anyone choose to be a hero? – it seems to me that you've set yourself up to directly address the audience. But the film (as with most superhero stories) is concerned almost exclusively with vigilante violence, and it gets less realistic as it goes on. It starts out in something approximating our world, deliberately contrasting itself with the world of super-powers and so on, but ends up with

a jetpack

. I kind of feel like you can't have it both ways.

Mark Millar has said that he feels the film shows more consequence to the violence than most action films, as the lead spends six months in hospital. Whilst I agree that it's a good thing that he is shown to be vulnerable, all we see of the six months is Kick-Ass emerging at the other end

with the pseudo-superpower of reduced pain sensitivity

. What I don't feel there is much of is psychological consequence. Nobody seems especially disturbed by the horrendous things that take place. Upset, perhaps, but nothing in the long term.

The friend I saw it and I agreed that the film might have been improved had either Kick-Ass or Hit Girl died. That could have gone some interesting places regarding the consequences of violence, and they still could have made a martyr of the character, perhaps inspiring people to intervene in more civilized ways, or something possibly less lame, I don't know.

From the same interview with Millar (the latest Five Live film review (not Kermode this week)) I learnt that the comic has a scene where it transpires that Big Daddy has given Hit Girl cocaine under the guise of some special super-scientific performance enhancing whatever. This was considered too much for the film, but think it might have actually have been better had it been included, as it would make it more clear that what the father is doing is some seriously messed up and extremely manipulative child abuse. Maybe that's the point of the film and it's just being very subtle about it, but I certainly didn't get that vibe. Or perhaps I'm unreasonable for expecting everything to have a moral component. I don't know.

This film has been recommended to me by pretty much everyone I meet. Even strangers have told me how good it is, unprompted. I find it strange that nobody has the same concerns I did, bar the friend I saw it with and, apparently, the Daily Mail reviewer, who I must emphasize I do not completely align with (he keeps going on about Hit Girl being sexualized, which I didn't see any of, for example; also, I wouldn't call the film "evil"). One way in which it could be valuable is as a way of drawing into relief our attitudes regarding adult violence – why am I OK with that if Hit Girl is such a big deal? I'm probably being a massive hypocrite and hugely unprogressive. I'm fine with murdering shedloads of guys in a computer game, but I have reservations if a little girl does it in a film. I guess I just don't find it cool or funny. Other parts were funny, though.

Also, this is yet another film where the love interest is barely even a character. I know the script was co-written by Jane Goldman, but this kind of stuff still seems pretty misogynistic. Then again, I don't know if girly films do the same with the male love interests. Perhaps it's just misanthropic. Either way, it's standard fare, and evokes a pained sigh from me every time, although that might partly be because I'm emotionally immature enough to feel uncomfortable about all that romantic stuff.

This, as with most of my long posts, is probably a horrible rambling mess. I look forward to having how wrong I am explained to me.

I'm impressed James and I repeat what I have said before, you should try your hand at writing professionally. I think you have a great way with words (when you are not calling me a cock or something). I'm not saying this is your greatest work or whatever, just that I respect your writing ability; I could not write like that if I tried my hardest. FWIW I think you would make a great reviewer of games, films, books etc.

I HAVE LOVED YOU ENOUGH SPAZZFACE.

[toblix]

I've tried telling James this a million times in private chats and cam sessions, but he won't listen and keeps hitting on me. JAMES YOU SHOULD WRITE BOOKS!

[syntheticgerbil]

If he writes books, I want the "About the author" page at the end to be his avatar.

[ysbreker]

1. This thread is now over 107 pages long and a little under 4 years old now. I started it on 27th of July in 2006 and it's still going strong!

2. I just finished watching the first episode of treme (pronounced as tremay) and it's well worth watching for just the music alone. I can't wait for the next episode.

3. The Dr who episodes are great too I can't recommend them enough.

4. Miffy, do watch breaking bad it's an amazing show.

5. One day I will go through this thread and make one big list of every movie and TV show mentioned in this thread and put it online somewhere.

[Armchair General]

...I've tried telling James this a million times in private chats and cam sessions...

I believe this statement to require further clarification. Errors in BOLD.

Also, does this mean he has seen the real Toblix? DURR DURR DURRRRR! <dramatic music>

[toblix]

See? If James had written that, it would be apparent that it was meant as a joke. I only cause confusion and misunderstanding.

[Armchair General]

Oh! Humour! Joker

[James]

Yeah, nobody would believe me if I said that I thought Toblix had a way with words.

I'm impressed James and I repeat what I have said before, you should try your hand at writing professionally. I think you have a great way with words (when you are not calling me a cock or something). I'm not saying this is your greatest work or whatever, just that I respect your writing ability; I could not write like that if I tried my hardest. FWIW I think you would make a great reviewer of games, films, books etc.

I HAVE LOVED YOU ENOUGH SPAZZFACE.

Cock.

Alternatively: Plenty of people in this nice place can say words nicelier than me.

Alsotively: I generally lack insight beyond gut reactions which probably don't stand up to close inspection. I've considered what it would be like to consume media for review, and I'm not sure I'd have it in me.

Thank you nevertheless, of course. You are my favourite piece of furniture. Also: Blix. Also: Vanity.

[Garple]

A coworker lent me House of the Devil and I just watched it. I recommend not watching it. It's lame.

He also lent me The Fantastic Mr. Fox which is the best movie I've seen in at least a year.

[James]

A coworker lent me House of the Devil and I just watched it. I recommend not watching it. It's lame.

My horror film aficionado friend told me it was great in a neo-80s kind of way.

[Hermie]

My horror film aficionado friend told me it was great in a neo-80s kind of way.

That's what I thought about it too. Great throwback film! And while it doesn't bring anything new to the table that other horror films haven't, it was genre-aware enough that it kept me guessing, and so I didn't have the whole plot figured out by the end of the intro, as is the case with a lot of horror films nowadays.

I guess self-referential horrors are not something that lends itself to everyone. I'd put this in the same category as Drag Me To Hell, a movie I found fantastic, but I've heard from a lot of people who didn't like/get it.

(HotD is not as ridiculous as DMTH, though, for better or for worse. <.<)