MovieChat Forums > prayformojo > Replies
prayformojo's Replies
To me it seemed like a dumb version of "Interstellar" - way more simplistic and even less scientific. A nuclear "shockwave" propelling a ship (which it can't because it doesn't exist in a vacuum), instead of destroying it (which it would), being just the tip of the iceberg.
I agree. The whole thing was style over substance, emotion over reality - a very female film. That being said, some of the style and visual elements were really awesome at times, but the writing was just awful.
The dog ship was beyond ridiculous and that's where the film completely lost me. At that point I started to expect a complete bullshit ending and was not disappointed.
Like you said, none of it makes sense, but it seems like they flew to another black hole from the first one. But why? The girl talks about how it doesn't seem dense at all (a not dense black hole... right...), and this is all 15 or so years later. But how does the dog ship find them then? Do you have any idea how impossible it would be to send a ship to find another ship like that out all the possible space in the galaxy?
A few other obvious things I noticed:
- They are supposed to be heavily sedated, but only the main male character seems to be effected and everyone else is prone to violent outbursts.
- They apparently decelerate from 99% speed of light to "normal" by strapping into some chairs for a while (lol).
- They have solved all of these technical miracles but cosmic radiation had them stumped, that knifes through the ship like it's hot butter.
- The black man seemingly morphed into dirt in the garden. lol WTF?
- And did you notice that the space helmets had a cloth flap at the back (didn't seal the head), not to mention they were obviously just 90% made of fabric.
"Pretentious Mumblecore Trash" about sums it up (I also had no idea what they were saying half the time).
7.1 now. How high can it go? Will it hit 9 to reflect the modern masterpiece of film it really is? (/s)
Seriously though, IMDB has a long history of either allowing itself to be easily gamed, or directly manipulating votes to favour certain shows that always have a lot of corporate backing and money behind them. I honestly think a bit of both is going on.
I always just read the reviews, always sorted by new (I'm afraid they will take away that feature any day). One can easily tell by doing that for Captain Marvel that the negative reviews tend to be intelligent and reasoned, while the positive reviews are empty and vacuous.
The fact that you have to provide a laundry list of films that are better than Buster Scruggs to prove that Buster Scruggs isn't awful says it all.
Not sure on what planet Buster Scruggs is increasing in popularity, but it's not this one. A couple token Oscar nominations in obscure categories, no buzz, no one cares. I can even see them winning the best costume one, as if that ever drove the masses to pick up a film.
I'm not saying the Coens are bad filmmakers, I'm saying they and their fan base have lost the objective ability to discern good films from bad. To a certain set, everything they make must be "brilliant," not because of the material itself but because of who made it (i.e., the laundry list of previous films).
I take the ending quite literally and don't think it has anything do with Lars Von Trier personally. Jack is an evil man, and therefore goes to hell. I can even believe that the film is saying he was so evil that he created a pathway to hell without actually dying first. His "house" opened it up.
Virgil is the guide through the underworld (a nod to "The Aeneid"). There is some significance to showing / tempting Jack with the broken bridge to freedom that sends him into the pit of hell. Virgil knows Jack will try (due to his narcissism), and also knows he will fall (everyone falls). I think it might have been one last chance for a hope of redemption, but I need to think about it a bit more.
I freaking hate disney and most of what they do, but they are home to the blockbuster movie libraries that the masses want to see (Star Wars, Marvel, etc). When these masses have to choose between getting "Buster Scruggs" on Netflix or "Every Star Wars and Marvel movie ever made" on another service, which one do you think they will choose? Netflix may survive, I don't really know, but to claim that it's the première venue for films to be released is fantasy.
[url]http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-rise-and-fall-of-netflix-here-are-5-reasons-why-netflix-stock-is-crashing-as-the-company-heads-for-oblivion[/url]
Theatres are still the big league and Netflix is still the minor leagues. That has not changed, despite the dumptruck loads full of money Netflix has blown on films such as "Buster Scruggs" in a failed attempt to make the narrative you support into actual reality. I read this week that Netflix is almost certainly going to go under in the near future due to it's massive debt load and furious competition on the horizon form competitors like Disney that have the actual content people want to see (aka, big league movies released in the theatres).
As for fanboyism, you can wander over to imdb and read all the reviews from fanboys falling over themselves calling "Buster Scruggs" the most brilliant film of all time. In reality, "Buster Scruggs" will be down the memory hole in 6 months or less.
Fully agree. It was almost like a teenage caricature of Han Solo, before he matured. Except who wants to see that? It would have been way better to see a more badass Han, a real gambler. Even the gambling scenes were poorly executed and didn't make Han seem cool. Casino Royale is the gold standard of how to make a gambler seem badass as ___. The writers should have known this and written something more creative than a card game.
Are you saying you would pirate such a movie for free on a bit-torrent site and deny di$ney their hard earned cut of money?? That would be very wrong..... :D :D :D
Maybe a guy having constant space outs, flashbacks, suicidal thoughts, and is popping pills every 5 minutes isn't actually the criminal mastermind you think he is?
It's not a plot hole, the character didn't give a shit.
It's subjective, of course, but I think "The Exorcist" is the scariest movie ever made. "Heriditary" showed a lot of promise in the same vein, but (for me) failed to sink it's teeth in the way "The Exorcist" did. I think the difference is that some of the scenes in "Hereditary" are just a bit over the top and take away from the realism. There were quite a few laughs in my theatre at many scenes. I wasn't laughing during the "The Exorcist."
One of my favorite bits of trivia about this film is that Leone wanted Clint Eastwood to be one of those guys. Can you imagine the shock value if all you knew was the "Dollars" trilogy and were watching it for the first time?
I threw up on my back porch last night. It was still better than The Last Jedi.
I never said Trump is great, I was criticizing the film and the academy for political pandering. The Post will be a forgotten film in a couple years (if it isn't already), because it's not actually a very good film. It just happened to line up with the right politics at the right time.
You see, I come here to discuss _film_, not try to push my edgelord political agendas...
Thanks for your intellectual contribution to the discussion.
Dunkirk is also objectively better. Actually I could probably find at least 10 films from last year that are objectively better.
The Shape of Water is actually a superhero film, just gussied up a bit and a sappy romance tacked on. As far as superhero films go, I enjoyed "Logan" far more. Maybe "Logan" should have won best picture? You might think that seems ridiculous, but that's why you should think "The Shape of Water" winning best picture is ridiculous.
It's more than that. There was a #metoo moment in the movie, when the evil creepy Shannon character inexplicably "hits on" the mute woman. I knew right then and there it was going to be best picture. The film hits all the right notes: men are awful, white men are awful, women are oppressed, women are powerful and courageous, all women are beautiful, minorities are oppressed, minorities are powerful and courageous, gay people are oppressed, and on, and on.
Strip away the politics and look at the film objectively and you have a rather clunky superhero-romance film. Nothing is particularly unique. Supporting characters are cartoonish. Film has little depth to it. I rate it a generous 6/10 and it didn't come close to cracking my top 10 list of the year, let alone best picture.
So yes, it only won because of politics.
Comparing the critical reaction to RoTJ and TLJ is interesting. RoTJ was actually panned critically. My favorite example being Pauline Kael's review (most influential film critic in history): http://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2018/01/15/return-of-the-jedi-pauline-kael/
But in today's sellout media environment, TLJ, an inferior film to RoTJ in almost every measurable way, was critically lauded.
While I don't think the Academy is quite tone deaf enough to award Best Picture to The Post, I have $10 riding on Streep for Best Actress (over Frances McDormand who totally deserves to win) JUST because they know she will go up and give some kind of political and/or anti-Trump embarrassing rant.
I disagree about Hanks. I will also note the Oscars didn't see anything special in the performance either. I'd almost say he's in a rut, playing the same character over and over. The "Bridge of Spies" character was almost identical. Nothing wrong with his performance, but mind blowing? Not really. Streep did get an Oscar nod, and looking back I think she was the best actor in the film and better than "average."
Adding some orange lens filters doesn't really wow me in terms of cinematography. Again, the Academy agrees. Dunkirk and Blade Runner 2049 are examples of what I personally consider to be amazing cinematography.
The Post is undeserving of a Best-Picture nomination. It will be a forgotten film in a couple months.