Movie/TV recommendations

[juv3nal]

I don't love either Lie to Me or Mentalist, but I prefer Lie to Me. I think I just like Tim Roth because of his part in Reservoir Dogs.

LAPD Officer Marvin Nash: What the fuck are they waiting for? This fucking guy slashes my face, and he cuts my fucking ear off! I'm fucking deformed!

Mr. Orange: [yells] FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! I'M FUCKIN' DYING HERE! I'M FUCKIN' DYING!

Plus, while Cal is abrasive/a bastard, Jane is smug which in my books is more annoying.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Why does Whedon have prostitutes in every series? Firefly's happy proud space prostitutes are the worst offenders in teen boy wish fulfilment, but Dollhouse was pretty dubious as well.

What happy, proud space-prostitutes? You don't mean the Geishas, do you?

Also: Angel - No prostitutes. Buffy - No prostitutes.

Correct statement: Why does Whedon have prostitutes in every one series?

Which just makes you look like a perv. Lol.

[Orv]

What happy, proud space-prostitutes? You don't mean the Geishas, do you?

Also: Angel - No prostitutes. Buffy - No prostitutes.

Correct statement: Why does Whedon have prostitutes in every one series?

Which just makes you look like a perv. Lol.

The ex-Geishas of "Heart of Gold" would now qualify as prostitutes, if that's what you mean. And if not, even if they aren't used for sex, the blanks in Dollhouse technically qualify as prostitutes, as their bodies are being sold/used, simply with the mind transferred.

Two series! (And now I have one on TP. Dad said I'd never amount to anything. )

((Though how meaningful it is one-upping someone in this conversation is. . .debatable.))

[ThunderPeel2001]

Ah. Yes, but the ones in the Heart of Gold are throwbacks to Western tropes... and they're only in one episode. (Which I obviously was already aware of ) If every show that featured a prostitute in one episode was listed, I'm pretty sure it would be a very long list indeed... even if they're prostitutes with a "Heart of Gold". *wink*

Either way, the amended statement still reads a bit weird:

Why does Whedon have prostitutes in every half of his series?

[Orv]

I think we're all just bad people.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I think we're all just bad people.

I think we're all prostitutes.

[pabosher]

I love the fact there's an episode called Heart of Gold.

[MrHoatzin]

Never Let Me Go fucking broke me. A really difficult movie. And a strange one to see in this day and age. If you have the balls to see it, DO NOT watch the trailer beforehand.

Argh. It is a really messed up movie. Its visceral ickiness is all the more amplified by the slow, quaint, pastoral setting and the interesting decision to put sci-fi into a plausible past (rather than the usual things you see: abstract distant futures or near futures that over time prove to be conspicuously retro-futuristic). The dread and apprehension never gets above a low hum, but it breaks you down, what with the system's preference for indoctrination over the use of force over these docile sub-people living the lives of cattle—obediently and abjectly—yet participating in society somehow, on its outskirts. They never learn why and how they came to be what they are, they don't seem to care. It never occurs to them they ought to rebel! It is so infuriating. It made me think of slavery and military service. And all kinds of dead-end jobs in middles of nowhere that residents cannot escape from, like mining. It is not as much the bizarreness and foreignness of the premise that gets to you, so much as its universality.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Wow. Sounds........ interesting.

But how can I decide if I should see it or not if I can't watch the trailer? Can you post some sort of description?

[MrHoatzin]

It is a slow, psychological sci-fi film that creates a kind of inter-human space and tells its story through it (it works somewhat similarly to Y Tu Mamá También in this regard, though the movies have basically nothing else in common). It takes a little after Blade Runner thematically.

[Kolzig]

I watched the trailer, did I fail? I already knew before seeing the trailer that I want to see the whole movie. Would like to read the book also.

[ThunderPeel2001]

It is a slow, psychological sci-fi film that creates a kind of inter-human space and tells its story through it (it works somewhat similarly to Y Tu Mamá También in this regard, though the movies have basically nothing else in common). It takes a little after Blade Runner thematically.

So how can I decide if being "broken" by this film is something I want to experience? Is it harrowing? Will it make be lose the will to live? Will it haunt my nightmares? Will it make me question the point of existence? Will it depress me beyond belief?

[Nevsky]

Is it harrowing? Will it make be lose the will to live? Will it haunt my nightmares? Will it make me question the point of existence? Will it depress me beyond belief?

I don't think so, no.

[MrHoatzin]

I don't think so, no.

I do! Ok, maybe not, not entirely. I have a strong reaction to injustices perpetrated by societies. You may be fine.

The trailer, I feel, tells you pretty much everything you need to know without leaving much to organic discovery, which is a strong suit of the movie's storytelling.

[Nevsky]

I do! Ok, maybe not, not entirely. I have a strong reaction to injustices perpetrated by societies. You may be fine.

Oh, it's a very affecting film, but I don't think it will depress ThunderPeel beyond belief. I'd say it's melancholic, but not exaggeratedly so. I wouldn't put it on a par with Requiem For A Dream or Threads for making you question the point of it all.

I liked it a lot, and wrote about it here in a very spoileriffic way.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Thanks Nevsky! That makes it a lot clearer. It's not Requiem for a Dream, good. I assume it's not quite in the same leagues as The Road, either? (Which I didn't see, but heard was very depressing.)

I think I might actually watch this film, then.

[Nevsky]

It's not Requiem for a Dream, good. I assume it's not quite in the same leagues as The Road, either? (Which I didn't see, but heard was very depressing.)

No problem.

Although, you know, I'd probably say that it is similar to The Road, in that the 'depressing' aspect is totally tonal - they both share a very overcast atmosphere - whereas Requiem For A Dream has that final montage sequence

where a number of narrative threads climax, simultaneously, in the most horrific ways possible

. I don't think there's anything as harrowing as that in either The Road or Never Let Me Go.

Likewise, I think I saw other, more 'harrowing' or emotionally draining films very close to it - Blue Valentine and Black Swan come to mind.

I hope this has been helpful, and not incredibly confusing.

[MrHoatzin]

Black Swan, really? I left the theater amused by how cartoony it all was. I didn't feel the same sadness for the world at large I had after Never Let Me Go. Black Swan's a good movie, effective, but kindof silly in places. It is most effective when it is at its subtlest.

[Nevsky]

Black Swan, really? ... I didn't feel the same sadness for the world at large I had after Never Let Me Go.

Oh, sure, I'm lumping that in there as being an emotionally draining experience. It doesn't have the same despair as Never Let Me Go (or Blue Valentine), but I was a nervous wreck by the end of it.

[syntheticgerbil]

Rewatched Baron Munchausen on blu-ray (Christmas gift from my sweetheart) and was completely weirded out that I had disliked the movie before. I had put off buying the bare bones DVD for years and years, because as a Gilliam fan, it was my least favorite movie by him. Now I have no idea what I was thinking.

I had first seen the beginning until the moon part at some young age when it was shown on TV before my dad turned it off on me for all of the oral sex jokes I didn't understand. It was fascinating visually and I had no idea what was going on, but that didn't matter. I again watched it as a rental around 16 or so before realizing it was the same movie, and becoming quite bored and disinterested. I mean the former DVD version was viewed on a tiny CRT TV in my room and had no subtitles (I compulsively turn them on for most things since I apparently have a very difficult time understanding normal people, let alone the British).

Maybe it was the increased resolution or the larger screen that lended itself to making the visuals seem way less packed, but it was fun from beginning to end. My girlfriend was wondering why the hell I had hated the movie before as the credits were rolling and I really don't seem to have a good answer. The movie didn't seem slow or plodding at all and the actors all did a great job. It looked amazing and the ending was quite satisfying despite being a strange paradox that makes my brain hurt. Maybe I was just in a terrible mood the last time I had seen it?

I still don't quite understand what was going on with the movies production or exactly who's fault the overbudget stuff was after viewing the extras, except possibly everyone's? There was a lot of no holds barred mudslinging back and forth between those interviewed, which was kind of funny. As they say at the end of the documentary, the troublesome production really doesn't come out in the final film, which is nice, unlike Brothers Grimm for instance.

[DanJW]

My girlfriend was wondering why the hell I had hated the movie before as the credits were rolling and I really don't seem to have a good answer.

Interesting. Maybe your father's rejection of the movie when you were at such an impressionable age ingrained in you the idea that the film was unworthy.

Here, lie down on zis couch. Tell me about your mother

[ThunderPeel2001]

I still don't quite understand what was going on with the movies production or exactly who's fault the overbudget stuff was after viewing the extras, except possibly everyone's? There was a lot of no holds barred mudslinging back and forth between those interviewed, which was kind of funny. As they say at the end of the documentary, the troublesome production really doesn't come out in the final film, which is nice, unlike Brothers Grimm for instance.

Basically, Gilliam had a falling out with his producer Arnon Milchan after their collaboration on Brazil, and during pre-production on Munchausen. He was then looking for a new producer to help make this latest script. Every producer he spoke to told Gilliam that the film couldn't be made for less than $40 million, and none of the studios were prepared to give him that much money.

This is where Thomas Schuly came along. He claimed he had a stellar resume, had saved all these great films single-handedly, and said the film could easily be made in Italy (where he had lots of connections) for $26 million, no problem. Everyone was sceptical, except Gilliam, who was giddy at the thought of being to make his next film. Eventually Columbia/Tri-Star bit the hook, but under the proviso that a bond company guarantee the film (this means that if it goes over-budget, they take over production costs). They found a bond company who agreed and production went ahead... all because one man came along and told everyone what they wanted to hear. Quite astonishing, really, but I bet it happens all the time.

As it turns out, Schuly, predictably, was talking out of his arse. Production didn't go anywhere near as smoothly or cheaply as he promised, and his amazing claims of previous experience came under serious question. As soon as there were troubles he became hard to find, and when he was around, locked himself away in his office. Gilliam felt he'd been betrayed by Schuly, because as his producer, they should have been trying to fix the problems together, but Schuly (presumably panicked) threw Gilliam under a bus and started pointing fingers in his direction behind his back.

Ultimately Schuly had promised the moon, and obviously couldn't deliver it. Gilliam and everyone else were far too naive and eager to believe the crap he was selling them. (Schuly had some weird personal issues, too. In the book I read he's quoted as saying that the whole thing was a conspiracy against him because he was German... okaaay.)

When the Bond company took over, it got really ugly. Production was shut down, Gilliam was made a scapegoat, and the whole thing was a horrible nightmare -- even for the cast. (Eric Idle later described it as the worst experience of his life, "and I went to public school".)

In the end the film cost $46 million, a little over the original estimates, and a long way over Schuly promised $26 million. When it was all said and done, it actually got pretty great reviews, but by this time the head honchos at Columbia/Tri-Star had changed. In that all too familiar story, the new heads of the studio saw the film as an embarrassment of the previous administration, and wanted nothing to do with it.

They spent next to nothing on advertising and gave it a very limited release.

[syntheticgerbil]

Interesting. Maybe your father's rejection of the movie when you were at such an impressionable age ingrained in you the idea that the film was unworthy.

Maybe so. He only likes clean TV from the 50s and 60s and almost nothing else.

Ultimately Schuly had promised the moon, and obviously couldn't deliver it. Gilliam and everyone else were far too naive and eager to believe the crap he was selling them. (Schuly had some weird personal issues, too. In the book I read he's quoted as saying that the whole thing was a conspiracy against him because he was German... okaaay.)

When the Bond company took over, it got really ugly. Production was shut down, Gilliam was made a scapegoat, and the whole thing was a horrible nightmare -- even for the cast. (Eric Idle later described it as the worst experience of his life, "and I went to public school".)

...

They spent next to nothing on advertising and gave it a very limited release.

Ah, I guess it makes more sense that way without milling over a ton of details. Schuly was just strange in the documentary on the disc, talking in a strange manner. Also all of his clips were back and forths of him saying the exact opposite of what the problem others were saying it was as far as funding.

Then I was confused that there was something about the bond company being insured by another bond company, which seemed to have caused a problem as well, but I have no clue what.

The thing I didn't understand was at the end, Gilliam did say the reviews were good, but only 116 prints of the movie ended up being made. While I really don't know what the usual numbers are, he claimed art house films would at least get 400 prints. I don't understand why Columbia purposefully wouldn't try to get any money back by making it more available and promoting whatever they could afford.

Something must have gone after all these years right for such a high quality DVD rerelease jam packed with extras.

[ThunderPeel2001]

The thing I didn't understand was at the end, Gilliam did say the reviews were good, but only 116 prints of the movie ended up being made. While I really don't know what the usual numbers are, he claimed art house films would at least get 400 prints. I don't understand why Columbia purposefully wouldn't try to get any money back by making it more available and promoting whatever they could afford.

Something must have gone after all these years right for such a high quality DVD rerelease jam packed with extras.

Well the book I read said they'd agreed to 200, but they never got anywhere near that number. As I said before, the debt had already been written off to the hold heads. The new heads were eager to show what they were capable of, they weren't keen to become associated with the next Heaven's Gate. Also, you've got to remember, it wasn't just about making more prints, the film needed about $20 million spent on promoting it. Instead they spent $3 million.

The new heads weren't about to risk another $20 million on a film that had such a bad stigma attached to it. If it had done badly at the box office, it would have made them look like idiots for throwing more studio money into it... Or that's probably what they thought.

An internal memo from Dan Michelle, Columbia's President of Marketing, read:

1. The finished picture's playability will achieve normative levels at best.

2. The picture has limited appear based on pre-interest in title and stars, genre, period setting and lack of marketable stars.

3. Based on Terry Gilliam's track record with Brazil and Time Bandits, the picture will receive mixed reviews.

4. The picture is not likely to generate strong, positive word-of-mouth from mass audiences.

Of course this set everyone thinking, "Don't throw good money after bad!".

One of the many injustices of the filmmaking world, but as you say, it's clearly found an audience in the long run.

(A friend of mine was telling me that Labyrinth was considered a failure, but someone at Disney did the numbers since its release and noted that, over all that time, it had actually earned Disney a huge amount of money. It was because of this that gave Dave McKean and Neil Gaiman the go ahead to make Mirrormask.)

[syntheticgerbil]

An internal memo from Dan Michelle, Columbia's President of Marketing, read:

1. The finished picture's playability will achieve normative levels at best.

2. The picture has limited appear based on pre-interest in title and stars, genre, period setting and lack of marketable stars.

3. Based on Terry Gilliam's track record with Brazil and Time Bandits, the picture will receive mixed reviews.

4. The picture is not likely to generate strong, positive word-of-mouth from mass audiences.

Of course this set everyone thinking, "Don't throw good money after bad!".

Is this from Losing the Light? I mean to read that someday but not any time soon. I've only read Dark Fools and Holy Knights, which briefly touched upon the Munchausen stuff, also helping confused me, and the book on Brothers Grimm, which is maybe somewhat similar but hassled for all different reasons.

I plainly disagree with the number one, and I think kids would have probably have been fascinated by the visuals if anything else. The bankable stars mentioned in number two seem like sort of a point, especially since Robin Williams' name wasn't allowed on the poster.

As far as point 3, I thought Time Bandits was always considered a major success, at least in the United States in terms of reviews and profit. Gilliam claimed Munchausen received good reviews overall, so maybe the mass audience would have liked it but oh well.

It's all wishful thinking from some fan speaking as someone who wasn't there and can only sort of see the aftermath, just basically wondering why more profit wasn't attempted to be made, since it seemed almost like a sure bet to me, especially considering a lot of Gilliam films since.

(A friend of mine was telling me that Labyrinth was considered a failure, but someone at Disney did the numbers since its release and noted that, over all that time, it had actually earned Disney a huge amount of money. It was because of this that gave Dave McKean and Neil Gaiman the go ahead to make Mirrormask.)

Very strange Labyrinth was also considered a failure. I had always figured it had done very well upon release as opposed to The Dark Crystal despite having a pretty nonsensical plot. Although I thought the whole thing was done on Lucasfilm money, not Disney money. Is it because Disney owns most things Henson at this point?

I know even then, Mirrormask was still done on an insanely tiny budget compared to all the money made since on home video releases and TV runs for the Henson fantasy movies. I also received Mirrormask on Blu-ray for Christmas too from my girlfriend coincidentally, and while almost all of the 3D is obviously amateurish, I still can't believe the great lengths gone through texturing, lighting, and layering to hide this fact, completely separating visuals on par with a normal video game studio of that time to movie quality.