Movie/TV recommendations

[Ben X]

Anyone watch Humans? Channel 4 series remaking a Norwegian (iirc) one, about robot house-slaves. It's pretty cool; although it doesn't really broach any new ground it's well-made and good treatment for Utopia withdrawal.

[Gwardinen]

Yeah, I watched it and mostly enjoyed it. Though the fact that the daft human family helped save everything in the end was kind of strange and twee to me.

People don't generally get to just demand phones back from the police during a raid even when there aren't billions of pounds of corporate interests at stake. And the fact that seemingly no one ever considered they could be in a huge amount of danger (nor did anyone make a real effort to buy them off) for standing in the way of that was bizarre. There was never any real legal or physical threat against anyone but the synths, which is again not generally my experience when people with no political power go up against a project the baddies themselves claim has "no upper limit in market value".

[Ben X]

Didn't they

get their phones back as part of their memory-video threat?

 

But yeah, the family's characterisations and actions tended to feel pretty arbitrary. The guy from Utopia playing the cop and his domestic storyline was much better.

[syntheticgerbil]

Yeah the last two or three episodes were just garbage, so I agree with with Gwardinen. It seemed like a good setup in which I was seriously interest and then it just fell apart. I was considering whether or not I should turn it off during the beginning of episode 8.

 

Also the show was juggling way too much characters to really get anything out of most of them.

[Ben X]

What about the last three eps was particularly garbagey?

[Bjorn]

 

[Ozzie]

Looks like the kind of movie I wanna see!

[syntheticgerbil]

What about the last three eps was particularly garbagey?

I felt like the dad sleeping with the android was emotionally flat. Maybe the actor that played the dad was not very good. The mother not wanting to talk about her past also seemed like a bizarre plot point to linger on that wasn't *that* bad. The prostitute android who committed murder was also quickly swept under the rug as something to not be afraid of.

 

What happened in the end seemed like I was watching Superfriends family edition help the androids get away while the cops bumbled around and there was a super villain to boot. I was having so much fun when I was just guessing what the motives were for some of the androids. The most interesting characters were everyone except the family, yet we spent way more time with them and then had to juggle between the cop's life as well (which I liked). I feel like the family could have been cut out early and maybe only kept the teenage daughter at the forefront.

 

In the end it just felt like a safe suburban family show that happened to have robots. I wanted more scenes like where the prostitute bot was talking to the scientist about her origins while he hid her presence. That character development there was brilliant.

[Ben X]

Yeah, the family really was the big problem of the show.

[BadHat]

The difference in quality from last week's Rick and Morty to this week's is like day and night. Total filler episode (can a show with very little plot to speak of have filler?) to total gold. It's almost like last week's was transplanted from a future season where they've run out of inspiration. Is that meant to be some kind of big meta-joke? Like the show itself did a time travel thing? Heh.

[Ninety-Three]

The difference in quality from last week's Rick and Morty to this week's is like day and night. Total filler episode (can a show with very little plot to speak of have filler?) to total gold. It's almost like last week's was transplanted from a future season where they've run out of inspiration. Is that meant to be some kind of big meta-joke? Like the show itself did a time travel thing? Heh.

 

Referring to the giant head episode and the microverse episode? Funny you should say that, I preferred the giant heads. There was little in the way of narrative arc, and it didn't do the interesting scifi concept thing that a lot of episodes did, but the writing (especially in the opening minutes) did a fantastic job of delivering its jokes, and that's what I'm there for.

[brkl]

I thought the cult based on pigeon superstition was pretty on point.

[brkl]

Okay, that was a sweet, sweet episode.

[thefncrow]

Watching this, I had that feeling of "I've seen this actress before, who is she?" about the granddaughter character. Looked up the actress, and realized she's Kimmy from The Americans.

Instantly it makes that trailer a little creepier to me.

[BadHat]

I watched Kingsman knowing next to nothing about it. I came out wondering how such a fun, silly concept could be so marred by excessive, queasy, gleeful violence. Then I looked it up and found it was from the director of Kickass, based on a comic by Mark Millar.

Fuck.

[Mawd]

Going through the older Mad Max films has been rather nice. At the end of each one I kinda have to stop myself from watching Fury Road again (although at this point I could probably watch it once a week and be happy). 

Anyway watching the first one has gotten me in the mood to re-watch Goodbye Pork Pie and maybe even Shaker Run if I can dig up the copy of that we still have lying around.

Anyone have any recommendations for weird car movies? 

[marblize]

I watched Kingsman knowing next to nothing about it. I came out wondering how such a fun, silly concept could be so marred by excessive, queasy, gleeful violence. Then I looked it up and found it was from the director of Kickass, based on a comic by Mark Millar.

Fuck.

 

I haven't seen it yet but this was a fun read: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/07/17/film-crit-hulk-smash-kingsman-and-the-maybe-genius-of-non-winking-satire

 

Part of his belief is that Matthew Vaughn and his writing partner Jane Goldman take Millar's misanthropic horseshit and remove/subvert the shittier parts to make something that surpasses the original.

 

I hated Kick-Ass but am interested to see Kingsman now.

 

 

 

I saw Neighbors and do not recommend.

 

I'm watching The 100 and I highly recommend.

[Mangela Lansbury]

I watched Kingsman knowing next to nothing about it. I came out wondering how such a fun, silly concept could be so marred by excessive, queasy, gleeful violence. Then I looked it up and found it was from the director of Kickass, based on a comic by Mark Millar.

Fuck.

I don't know how I feel about Kingsman. It never really sat right with me. It seems like it's intended in part to be a satire on violence's role in culture, but it sincerely revels in some extreme violence, using it as a lighthearted, fun centerpiece. The film as a text treats scenes like the church scene like they're supposed to be mega rad, even if the characters themselves don't. There's some dissonance there that I never put the effort into voicing well, and now it's been so long since I've seen it that I can't.

But the dude is super cute and he takes off his shirt, so I give it two thumbs up, would use A-B function on DVD, great movie.

[BadHat]

The church scene was definitely the turning point. I kind of just sat there slack jawed as it just kept on going and getting more and more ludicrously violent. Like... I almost want to give the movie props because it felt like a genuine shock, but I don't think the movie really earned it because the tone isn't carried into the rest of the film whatsoever. It instantly reverts back to jovial, "stylish" crassness, but in a way that's almost like they're winking at the camera, but not really? Like, I genuinely have no idea what tone they were shooting for. The part that solidified my opinion of the movie is the end sequence where Sammy J's villain is fucking up the world while the hero takes his sweet-ass time stylishly making his way to thwarting him, stopping to chat up a random damsel along the way (don't even get me started on that closing scene, fucking hell). Then you have all these SUPER CLIMACTIC scenes which are intercut between people from various countries mercilessly slaughtering each other, and handsome chavvy hero lad smugging it up to save the day (was I the only one who thought he looked ridiculous with the slicked hair and glasses though?). And it's like... I guess they're trying to emphasize that he's a true gentleman now, because he's all suave and nonplussed? But it just comes off as though he's treating it like a game, like the actual character on screen has wholly bought into what a shameless power fantasy the movie became.

 

I don't know, man, it's just such a queasy, confusing mess. But then the parts of it that aren't like that are so fun, and directed with such flair. The movie wouldn't be so frustrating if I wasn't so conflicted about almost liking it. I had a far easier time hating Kick-Ass. :v

[marblize]

7. MEANINGLESS VIOLENCE

 

SO THERE IS A SCENE IN KINGSMAN THAT IS ALREADY KIND OF INFAMOUS. MOSTLY BECAUSE IT'S THE KIND OF SCENE THAT INSPIRES COUNTLESS DIFFERENT REACTIONS, ALL OF THEM PROBABLY JUSTIFIED. BUT WHAT HULK LOVES MOST ABOUT THIS SCENE IS THAT WHEN PEOPLE EXPRESS THEIR OPINION ABOUT IT, THEY ARE ACTUALLY TELLING YOU A LOT ABOUT THEMSELVES.

HERE'S WHAT HAPPENS:

AFTER A LOT OF MCGUFFIN CHASING AND VARIOUS PLOT MACHINATIONS, THE FILM REACHES ITS 2/3 POINT AND OUR MAIN MENTORING AGENT, COLIN FIRTH'S "GALAHAD," ARRIVES AT A SMALL CHURCH IN THE SOUTH IN ORDER TO INVESTIGATE WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE BAD GUY'S PLOT. TURNS OUT THIS CHURCH WAS SPECIFICALLY TARGETED BECAUSE IT HAPPENS TO BE FULL OF THE WORST END OF THE SPECTRUM OF AMERICAN CONSERVATIVISM, I.E. HATEFUL OF JUST ABOUT EVERYONE NOT LIKE THEM. OF COURSE, SAM JACKSON'S "V" IS MANIPULATING THIS ENTIRE EVENT AND WATCHING FROM ACROSS THE STREET. SO HE TURNS A LITTLE DOOHICKEY AND SUDDENLY GALAHAD STARTS RESPONDING TO THESE JERKS HYPER AGGRESSIVELY WITH A LONG-WINDED AND PROGRESSIVE-MINDED TROLLING JOKE TO CONFRONT THE EVILS OF THE WOMAN NEXT TO HIM, WHICH IS COMPLETELY OUT OF CHARACTER FOR HIM. REELING FROM THE EMOTIONAL OUTBURST, HE MAKES HIS WAY TOWARD THE EXIT, AND THEN JUST STARTS SHOOTING A MAN... CUE ONE OF THE MOST EXTREME-BUT-PLACID ACTION SEQUENCES YOU HAVE EVER SEEN WHERE EVERYONE IN THE CHURCH JUST STARTS MURDERING EACH OTHER, ALL SET TO THE MOST CLICHE OF ALL CLICHE AMERICAN MUSIC: "FREEBIRD." AND SERIOUSLY, EVERYONE JUST STARTS FIGHTING. THERE'S NO POINT OR INTENTION TO IT. THEY JUST SEEM NOT TO BE IN CONTROL. AND IN TERMS OF TONAL EXECUTION, THERE IS NO EMPHASISON THE UGLINESS EVEN THOUGH IT IS INDEED UGLY. EVEN ALL THE COOL FIGHTING MOVES AND GORE ALMOST SEEM WEIRDLY DISTANT UNDER THAT INSANE SOUNDTRACK. AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, FIRTH IS THE LAST ONE STANDING, HE SEEMS TO COME TO HIS SENSES, AND WALKS OUTSIDE WHEREIN HE CONFRONTS THE VILLAIN ABOUT WHAT JUST HAPPENED...

SO THE SCENE IS THE CLOSEST THING HULK HAS EVER SEEN IN TERMS OF AN ACTUAL CINEMATIC REPRESENTATION OFMEANINGLESS VIOLENCE.

NO, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS SIMPLY NON-DRAMATIC OR DEVALUING LIFE, BUT MORE IN THE SENSE THAT HULK GENUINELY FELT NOTHING WHILE WATCHING IT. THERE IS NO ROOTING INTEREST. NO DRAMA. NO CONTEXT. MEANING IT'S NOT VIOLENCE THERE SECRETLY TO CATER TO INDULGENT BLOODTHIRST, OR CATER TO A DESIRE FOR COOL ACTION. HULK KNOWS IT MAY SEEM LIKE IT, AS THAT IS THE "WHAT" BEING FILMED, BUT THE CONTEXT AND THE CINEMATIC LANGUAGE ABSOLUTELY READ OTHERWISE. THE SCENE IS NOT MEANT TO GLORIFY THE VIOLENCE, NOR IS IT MEANT TO MAKE YOU FEEL BAD OR RUB YOUR FACE IN GRIMNESS, NOR THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION (THEY PICKED THE WORST PEOPLE AS TARGETS WITHIN THE CHURCH FOR A REASON). AND IT PICKED THE MOST OVERPLAYED, STALE, EPIC SONG YOU'VE SEEN A MILLION TIMES FOR A REASON. HECK, IT PRACTICALLY HAD TO BE "FREEBIRD" IN ORDER TO WORK WITH THIS KIND OF DISTANCING EFFECT. AND THUS, THE SCENE IS THE ONLY TIME THAT HULK FEELS LIKE AN AUDIENCE WAS PURPOSEFULLY GUIDED INTO A SECTION OF ACTION WHERE THE MEANINGLESSNESS WAS THE ABSOLUTE TOTAL POINT OF WHAT WE WERE SEEING. 

THIS IS NOT TO ARGUE THAT THIS IS SOME LANDMARK MORAL ACCOMPLISHMENT. THERE HAVE BEEN MUCH GRANDER MEDITATIONS ON MEANINGLESS VIOLENCE (HELLO A SHORT FILM ABOUT KILLING) AND INSIGHTS INTO VIOLENCE THAT ARE INFINITELY MORE PROFOUND. BUT THE REASON HULK REALLY ENGAGES WITH THIS SCENE IS THAT IT WAS THE FIRST TIME HULK FELT LIKE HULK'S LOVE OF ACTION DIDN'T IMBUE THE SCENE WITH ANY BASER WAYS WHILE WATCHING IT UNFOLD. HULK FELT THE APPROPRIATE DISTANCE. AS SUCH, IT IS THE CLOSEST HULK HAS SEEN IN A MAINSTREAM FILM TO GETTING TO THE ESSENTIAL "IRONY" AT THE HEART OF HOW OFTEN WE THROW AROUND THE TERM "MEANINGLESS VIOLENCE" ITSELF. BECAUSE SO OFTEN, WE WANT THE VIOLENCE. SO OFTEN WE ROOT FOR IT. SO OFTEN IT IS PART OF THE LANGUAGE OF OUR IMPULSES. BUT EVEN WHILE THIS SCENE GOES ON AND ON AND ON, THERE IS NO REAL SENSE OF WHAT IS EVEN HAPPENING (WHICH IS WHY THE EXPLANATION HAS TO COME AFTER) IN ORDER TO FULLY THROW YOU INTO SOMETHING WITHOUT CONTEXT. AND HERE'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT:

IF WE DEMAND THAT FILMS BE HONEST, IS AN ACTUALREPRESENTATION OF MEANINGLESS VIOLENCE NOT THE MOST HONEST THING A VIOLENT BLOCKBUSTER CAN DO?

[Mangela Lansbury]

Film Critic Hulk is very much in love with Hollywood style films and tends to give them the most enthusiastic and charitable reading. I might be misreading his all caps for enthusiasm, but the charity is definitely always there when I manage to read one of his long-winded, gushing essays.

 

Saying that the scene is wholly decontextualized does a disservice to the plotting up to that point. The main villain is obviously doing something at the church to try something out. It's set up very well. That you don't know the specifics of how this is happening doesn't mean you don't know the specifics of why this is happening -- it's happening because the villain has set it up to happen and he has won in this moment, and because this is the lead-in to the all-is-lost moment so the hero can prove himself. It's isn't decontextualized and meaningless violence unless you, like, ignore the lead up to it, ignore any fore-knowledge of the structure of modern film, and ignore the culture that it exists in and has been made to appeal to. I guess in a vacuum, you could consider what he says to be true, but nothing exists in a vacuum. At the very least, this scene exists within the movie, and the movie gives meaning to the violence it portrays.

 

I don't agree with his read on the scene at all. But, again, I haven't watched it in long enough that I can't really argue with it meaningfully. I just don't think the movie is good art, so it's not worth the effort to put that much thought into it.

[marblize]

well the rest of the essay lends more context to this section. i just didn't want to copypaste 15,000 words onto here, lol.

 

again i haven't seen the movie so can't really comment. After previously reading about the church, the anal ending, etc. I was pretty opposed to even seeing it, but this pretty much convinced me.

 

 

Film Critic Hulk is very much in love with Hollywood style films and tends to give them the most enthusiastic and charitable reading.

 

I... don't really see this. He does for sure try to get something out of everything he sees, but I don't think there's a bias toward hollywood production. Yeah, he loves solid straightforward hollywood cinema like Indiana Jones, who doesn't? Especially lately though he seems to be into low-key things rich in symbolism like Under The Skin, Nightcrawler, Ex Machina over something like Jurassic World, which he decimated.

 

his caps aren't exactly enthusiasm for this particular movie, he uses them for things he harshly criticizes too, and for everything. If I understand correctly, the all caps third person character is partly an attempt to keep 10,000+ words entertaining, and partly as sort of an, i don't want to say alienating tactic, but, alienating tactic to keep super casual trolls not willing to actually engage with the text away from the comment section.

 

i am very much in love with Film Crit Hulk though. I just find his feminist/humanist(-not-as-an-anti-feminist-dirty-word) leanings coupled with his well-reasoned deep-dive criticisms/champions of what movies are actually doing/trying to do so compelling and refreshing.

 

 

 

 

Anyway I saw Sinister 2 today and it was pretty great. The villain's weird mechanisms and maneuvering and M.O. are some of the most interesting I've seen in horror in a bit. I think I'm officially done even looking at rotten tomatoes at all

[Merus]

Film Crit Hulk is pretty much always trying to do a charitable reading, because it seems like he's well over that phase of his life where he's willing to dismiss people entirely based on shitty attitudes. He took a long hiatus after Gamergate, which is where his usual stance falls down.

 

I read his argument as Kingsman being a little like this Tim and Eric sketch:

 

 

It's weirdly discordant after about 30 seconds in, and the sketch very carefully acknowledges the role of the audience here in enjoying the punchline. This is for you, it's saying. You wanted this. This is what you wanted and now we are giving it to you. What do you mean you don't want this. You liked it before.

 

I think people who were already queasy about the sexual politics and violence of spy films were put off by Kingsman very consciously jamming that button out of nowhere, in the same way that Tim and Eric doesn't work for everyone.

[Patrick R]

Film Crit Hulk also works in the industry, so there's usually a limit on how negative he goes.

[Gwardinen]

(was I the only one who thought he looked ridiculous with the slicked hair and glasses though?).

 

You were not. I thought he looked and sounded ridiculous when he was trying to be the archetypal Kingsman at the end. Particularly when he attempts to replicate the "manners maketh man" scene that Colin Firth did so well - he genuinely looked like a kid playing in his dad's clothes, and the words were utterly uncreditable coming from his voice and accent.