Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:Would Godzilla be improved if it were shot in black and white?

A black & white Godzilla already exists and it's pretty weak

turned2black wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:That area of the Midwest balances the line between beautiful and depressingly sparse so well.

That's exactly why B&W worked so well in the film.

For the record, even though I disliked the film (and found the cinematography visually unappealing), I agree with you. I think it's germane to the tone/themes of the film.

I still have to finish Nebraska.

I might see Fury next week...

turned2black wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:That area of the Midwest balances the line between beautiful and depressingly sparse so well.

That's exactly why B&W worked so well in the film.

Yep. Really enjoyed that one.

Is this as bad as it looks?
Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse

i'm intrigued.

American sniper. Heavy goin. Normally allergic to this guy but he owns this part completely.
Didn't realise it was a true story.

Inherent vice is awesome. So completely awesome

When I got hame from MMA last night - Mrs Rangi was watching Grease, so I watched the tail end of that

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Guys, Nebraska sucks

verily

in other news, Fury is just another recruiting movie. complete rubbish

Malloy wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Guys, Nebraska sucks

verily

in other news, Fury is just another recruiting movie. complete rubbish

Recruiting movie? Please expand...

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Malloy wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Guys, Nebraska sucks

verily

in other news, Fury is just another recruiting movie. complete rubbish

Recruiting movie? Please expand...

"just another recruiting movie" is a quote from samuel fuller, who in addition to being a director was a veteran. it seems to me that the ideological function of just about all war movies is legitimating warfare. Fury, on one hand, intends to shock and disgust its audience with violence. but as the movie wears on, it becomes obvious that it means to suggest that such violence, however gruesome, is necessary, and that the audience is meant to empathize with the perpetrators of the gore. meanwhile, i'm not quibbling with violence in films, specifically films about war. instead, i'm advocating for a brechtian effect on the audience--alienate them.

Good bless America!

by the way, i totally admit this is not ethically cut-and-dry. it means subsuming the personal experience of the soldier in the structural problematic of warfare. that is, the soldier's personal dilemma is erased by the representation of the structures that produce her--in this case, the exigencies of a military-industrial complex. but i think that's always happening in the military--that is, dehumanization (if not, why the drilling, bootcamp, etc.)--and it seems odd that so many films (who envision themselves as progressive) want to correct it--that is, to reassert humanity in war. it strikes me as deeply reactionary.

I think Jarhead was one of the few legitimate anti-war movies.

Malloy, are you asserting that because war is fundamentally political and dehumanizing, a war film can only be valuable if it depicts war in a political and dehumanized manner?

Also, do you think there is any value in a film that depicts a soldier's experience if that experience is treated humanely and apolitically?

Foxcatcher had a great performance from Carell and I fully believed that Tatum was a wrestler, right down to the walk. The story was interesting enough, but the wrestling parts were fairly boring. They also made a very poor choice of where to end the movie; it should've ended a scene earlier.

I think I'm pretty much on board with Malloy here. The Christianity stuff doesn't help either.

Dev wrote:I think I'm pretty much on board with Malloy here. The Christianity stuff doesn't help either.

In all fairness - I've kept Christianity out of this thread. Although having said that - I did watch The Son of God the other night. It wasn't great

Watched Selma last night - what a great film!

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Malloy, are you asserting that because war is fundamentally political and dehumanizing, a war film can only be valuable if it depicts war in a political and dehumanized manner?

Also, do you think there is any value in a film that depicts a soldier's experience if that experience is treated humanely and apolitically?

my first reaction is to wonder what an "apolitical" warm film would look like