Not signed in (Sign In)
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2012
    @Ben: Is that really your local subtitle? It's just so much better than the generic "Band of Misfits" it has in the US. Couldn't put "Scientists!" in the title here (ok, maybe in Boston, but certainly not the country-at-large) with all the backlash against intellectuals and a frighting number of people railing against "those smart-ass folks say we come descended from monkeys!" I think that last bit would go double since one of those Scientists! Is (the Doctor)Charles Darwin.
  1.  (10525.2)
    @J. - Yup, that really is our UK subtitle. Old 'Chuck' Darwin is one of ours so we're probably more inclined toward him.

    It is interesting that it's a religion vs. science backlash in the USA and not just a marketing "We like more OOMPH in our title" thing though - it's a real shame because some elements of the film feel [not very but just a little] steampunk [the Queen's flagship and one of her big secrets(!), if you get to see it] and I think the longer title is both steampunk and delightfully Victoriana.

    The whole thing's delightful. It's also entirely self aware with brilliant pub names like "The Hook, Line, and Sinker" when a trap's set; 'Lonely Street' when someone's cast out - I won't say anymore in case I spoil it but it is lovely.
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2012
    @Ben: Sadly it's not out here until the 27th, I'm looking forward to it. As for the religion vs. science thing, that's just my guess. I would bet that US marketing/localization saw that and said, "hmm, that won't fly here". Band of Misfits sounds...OOMPHless to me, blander than plain oatmeal, might just as well have been The Pirates! On a Boat. Whereas, In an Adventure with Scientists, sounds quirky and already goofball. Beyond the quirkyness, and it may be a nerdy niche thing, but that subtitle increases appeal for me.
  2.  (10525.4)
    No, the dislike for Darwin in America has nothing to do with him being a Brit. (We reserve our idiotic knee-jerk nationalist bigotry for the French.) It's because he challenged people to rethink whether the two conflicting Creation stories in the Bible also conflicted with reality.
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2012

    Unfortunately, The Pirates! On a Boat would probably do a lot better than either of the current titles.
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2012 edited
    So more than a week ago I was asked how often I got to the movies. Other than seeing Arrietty for a class project that last film I could remember going out of my way to see was The Muppets. So I said I rarely go - maybe two or three films a year. Kinda sad, I used to go two or three times a month, and I made a point of going to see good films at least as often if not more so than blockbusters. But between poverty and not wanting to go by myself...I haven't been getting out much in years.

    Ironically a few days later, siblings descended on the house and a plan was quickly assembled to see Hunger Games - which I was fully planning on skipping and had already read stuff with spoilers because...I wasn't interested in seeing it. The only spoiler I can think to mention is
    that the body count is high
    I guess it wasn't so thoroughly spoiled for me because I didn't know who was going to get gacked - I totally understood that there were no promises that anyone would live. So based on that, the audience shared a measure of the anxiety of the contestants, not knowing where they might find security or hope.

    But I don't tend to like to open myself like that for violent movies. And here's the thing, The Hunger Games is a perfectly decent movie. It doesn't completely collapse because it doesn't really try to be much. It's slick. It's awfully slick. Frankly, to a peacenik like me, it's disgustingly slick with camera sequences for sudden brutal scenes that are straight out of any contemporary textbook for action films. If the point is to be horrified by the random violence kids perpetrate on each other with so little prompting then the abruptness and kinetics of a thrown punch - never mind stabbing or other acts they commit - have to be relayed as straightforwardly as possible. Don't speed up the recording, don't kill the sound and don't tilt away. Make us see the kid absorb the blow and get laid flat. I've watched real fights, the speed and eruption of the true thing doesn't need to be dressed to be stunning.

    So. I didn't want to see it. And I walked out wishing I could have spent the time doing other things. But I like my siblings. Even if they didn't look at Rue and see my niece as I did (9 years old and cute as a button, fierce on a baseball diamond but utterly lost if you started to yell at her). Spent half of the movie on the edge of a panic attack and/or in tears because of her.
  3.  (10525.7)
    Just in case you're note tempted enough by The Pirates! In adventure with Whatever Mistaken-Nomenclature Your Country Has Chosen! Here's a free short provided by Aardman for the internets fun.
  4.  (10525.8)
    So last night I watched the remake of St. Trinians to find out if I should find it and its sequel for my nieces to watch.

    It's...disappointingly brash. The original is so funny because it really looks like they had little control over what the hell anyone but Alastair Simm was doing.

    The remake is very 90s, oddly: it revels so much in jokes about skunk and/or buzzing/tripping/bla-bla-bleurgh that I couldn't help become not-interested at certain points. Not only that but it really fetishizes the prepubescent. I felt really really old when I realized I felt pretty uncomfortable watching certain bits - they are fishnets and hold-ups and a camera focus on someone who I think is supposed to be 14...weird.

    However, saying that, once I'd finished my mug of Horlicks, I laughed at the slapstick, I enjoyed Stephen Fry, and I realized why my nieces expressed an interest - it's all quite simply bubble-gum fun [if you avoid the pervy weirdness].

    So, if you've young familia who express an interest - I say 'why not' but if you yourself think it'll be fun...erm, no, sorry.
  5.  (10525.9)
    Saw "The Raid: Redemption"  yesterday and I thought it was the most enjoyable flick I saw so far this year. I will be buying the DVD.
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2012
    I can't wait to see The Raid.
  6.  (10525.11)

    I've been away for a while, but belated thanks for your commentary on Drive. I think I'll need to see it again and re-evaluate before I can respond. Particularly intrigued by the life (love?) / death, community / isolation contrasts pointed out. I watched it shortly after Valhalla Rising, and only picked up the violence / self-sacrifice angle carried on from that film.

    So... no one watched The Hunger Games?
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2012
    @Mercer - um I did. See above. Just had a long discussion with my siblings too. Couldn't quite make my case for why its framing bothered me. The story was nearly exploitative about how violent children can be, particularly unquestioningly. I say that because the movie could have been about a million things in a world that allows for children in gladiatorial situations, but it focused hard on the brutal situation they were in. So its thesis was "look how tough & cool it is to make it through these fights." As an audience we're allowed the out of not thinking of ourselves on the same terms as those who organize & watch the games because we know it's fiction. I can't think of the film without thinking of that.
    • CommentAuthorMercer Finn
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2012 edited
    Enormous apologies, razrangel. The perils of skimming...

    More and more intrigued by the dilemmas you point out. Wondering if the slick-ified violence can be construed as knowing – a comment on 'the contemporary textbook for action films', cinema providing a modern version of ancient gladiatorial amusements...
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2012
    I just watched God Bless America and it was very enjoyable. It's out on-demand in some places around the net. It's basically fantasy-fulfillment for everyone out there who is sick of reality television and the society surrounding such things, which I'd imagine is something that describes you lot fairly well. It's also funny and dark and biting, much like Goldthwait's last film, World's Greatest Dad, but in a significantly different way.
  7.  (10525.15)
  8.  (10525.16)
    @ Vorn - IMDB reckons Iron Sky cost 7.5 million euros, is that right? If so, I'd be intrigued to know if you guys have/think you will make it back - I hope so as it looks great.

    In other news, Woody Allen's newest has a trailer!

  9.  (10525.17)

    Yeah, that's correct. The film's been open a few days now and it's already made that much - I have no doubt that it will make the money back and then some. There are still tons of territories to open, like Britain and US.
  10.  (10525.18)
    @ Vorn - congratulations, sir! Excellent stuff. I'll have to make my way when it hits the UK.
  11.  (10525.19)
    Is the US still a profitable market for movies? ;)
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2012
    Thanks for turning me onto The Raid, you guys. Definitely the best flick I've caught this year and significantly high up on my list of action movies.