It might be the weakest of the series, but IDENTITY has a real high rewatchability for several reasons which I already mentioned quite a few few, but I'll offer another, same one why compared to the genre, this one has a higher-than-average female fandom.

Most actioneers are male empowerment fantasies, classic example being James Bond. Save the day, blow everything up, get the girl, all that. Matt Damon though in IDENTITY, he isn't bare chest and doesn't toss the villain into a volcano and wise-crack "you're fired!"

In fact remember when he beats the shit out of those cops, and simultaneously learning that he's both an ass-kicking master and knows quite several tongues fluently? Most action pictures, the male audience avatar would think oh cool, but Damon is horrified. Indeed I thought that cafe scene was terrific, why would a person know all these things?

IDENTITY walks a very fine line between legitimate badass mechanics and being sensitive, not too macho silly like say RAMBO 2 but not too brooding mopey "wussy" like say TWILIGHT.

I'm reminded of that anecdote about how director Doug Liman was able to get IDENTITY greenlighted. Universal (at the time at least) had a mostly female-executive board and he pitched IDENTITY as this: "The movie is not as what it would be like to be Jason Bourne, but what it would be like to date him."



I actually would recommend it. Mind you though, its not one of those mindless titles where you can talk on the phone, go to the snack bar, clip your nails, and you wouldn't miss anything important. Like SALT.

You have to pay attention. Not Ph.D-necessary complicated, but the movie carefully takes its time (some complain too long) to set up this universe and the rules and stakes, all that. But if you stick with the movie, it will pay off once by the 2nd/3rd act you basically figure the whole scheme of things here.

Sure maybe one or tiny two plot details I'm not exactly too sure myself when thinking it over logically, but as a whole it comes together without the narrative spoonfeeding you like the filmmakers think you can't help drooling or something. It helps the 3rd act is beautifully/excitingly well cut together with Oscar-worthy editing between all the different situations by this crackerjack team during this mission. Box-office seems to indicate that most people areseemingly "getting it" at the very basic level of entertainment.

Or at the least, you'll enjoy the much-raved fight in the gravity-free room, done without CGI. An attempt to bring back magic to movie FX that isn't simply done by some fat asshole behind a laptop. Fascinating too that the best action scene doesn't involve the top star either.

Now the hype for INCEPTION is ridiculous. I'm much more with Capo's opinion of sorts, except more estatic. It's not 2001 or redefniing cinema nor is Nolan the next Kubrick/Spielberg, he's just the next Nolan.

It's a blockbuster thriller at heart, doing a tricky dance to be mainstream accessible while not your usual bullshit. A well-crated, well-executed, well-acted, well-imaginative, smarter than the season usually allow memorable blockbuster thriller.

INCEPTION is number 3 on imdb.com already with a average of 9.1 and even Toy Story 3 is in the top 10

Which isn't saying all that, really.

Anyone who thinks Inception is genuinely thought-provoking hasn't seen enough films.

I've noticed you like saying "all that" in this thread recently.

I wonder if you're negatively stimulated in response more to the hype about Nolan than about his supposed qualities (or detractions) as a director? He may not be "all that" *fingers snap*, but he made a few movies I liked.

Not to delegitimize your emotions, but I must admit there is currency here. The obnoxiously loud Nolan=Kubrick, Nolan=Spielberg comparisons are either ignorantly daft or just the usual mass fanboy nation simultaneous jerk off. But we can't be victims of noise as they are.



With more votes in, both will fall way way way down. That's what happened to DARK KNIGHT, and any new highly praised/popular movie initially for that matter.

Incidentally, INCEPTION and TOY STORY 3 are the only mainstream mass-release American movies I've seen in the last 3 months that I would actually consider worth watching. I might have added IRON MAN 2 too at one point, but that one quickly fades in memory to the point of watchable irrelevance. Like most television.

How is my pretentious prose?

This week on "RRA's Cryptic Wit"...



Yeah, the critical hype currently surrounding Nolan and his work has given me inclination to give him further attention. But that hype is directly related to his 'supposed qualities as a director', so any discussion in relation to that is obviously going to be directly related to those things. I'm not discussing his dress sense or facial expressions here, because there's no hype surrounding them therefore no need to engage in any criticism of them.

Or in other words, in responding to the 'hype' I'm unavoidably having to respond to the films themselves.

If people were coming out of seeing Nolan's recent films and saying, 'They're pseudo-serious pretentious action films with no genuinely intellectual engagement' (which his last two films have been, unquestionably), then I probably wouldn't feel the need to chip in my opinion other than to give approval of the consensus.

But because a lot of people aren't saying that sort of stuff, I feel obliged to speak out.

He's made a few I like too. What's your point?

I was refering to this particular previous entry of yours in the Random Movie/TV postings:



*fingers snap snap*





All that may be true, but if you explain why you indulge, I don't think you made the case why you should.

One of your country's stupid papers (Guardian?) had a general public poll which named Steven Spielberg the greatest director ever.

Is he? No. Do I get why he won that vote? Sure, he won several Oscars and made quite a few titles which (for a good time once) were the most successful at the global box-office, stacked atop each other like pancakes. Including a few that were rubbish like LOST WORLD, WAR OF THE WORLDS, E.T., etc. And so what?

But all that, like the Nolan "hype" which aggitates you so very much, is noise, racket that is distractful of what actually matters: Filmography's quality or lack thereof. Nolan made MEMENTO, which I liked. Spielberg made DUEL, underrated probably even among his biggest enthusiasts. I didn't see Beard-whore J.J. Abrams bring that title up when he announced SUPER 8.

Wow I said "all that" too. Awesome.



You're only as obliged as I am to bitched whenever a new Michael Bay movie makes a fortune. I get the impulse, doesn't mean we have to indulge in it and ultimately waste our time and energy on an irrelevant tangent.

For that matter, you're pissing away whatever wit and intelligence you may sport (which you do) on something quite meaningless. On the day of the Wikileaks, what was the national headline on cable TV in America? That unworkable law in Arizona., one law (of thousands) in a state (one of 50), and that is the national debate, pure meaningless culture war pornography. Not revelations of the bullshit going on in a bullshit war which we both seem to agree is quite bullshit.

This goes on the Internet too. Look at thos people pissed at Armond White for giving TOY STORY 3 thumbs down. Why because he disagreed with the mass majority? No because he broke that movie's Rotten Tomatoes review streak from being perfect 100%. I mean what the fuck?

Mere distractions.

Why bother about anything, ever?

It boils down to personal interest. I take art seriously; from that, I find arguments such as "films are entertainment as much as they are art", or "a work of art is popular therefore some people find it good", either banal or meaningless, which they are, because 'entertaining' is not a binary opposite to 'artistic' ('art' isn't something to be endured!) and because a work of art's popularity tells us nothing about the work of art other than the simple and relative fact that it's popular, which has absolutely no objective weight whatsoever. So when I say I feel 'obliged to speak out', I'm saying I feel as if I ought to speak out, as somebody who takes an active interest in these sorts of things.

Blah. Nobody and everybody is 'the greatest director ever'.

I disagree here. A 'greatest director ever' poll has no concrete antithesis other than 'here are a list of alternatives who are more worthy'; and there's probably a poll like that made every week, so who cares? Those kinds of things are actually conceived so that that kind of meaningless (if not uninteresting) debate can take place. That's what they're there for.

In the case of Christopher Nolan and Inception, for though, I'm addressing very specific issues that are at stake at a very specific time and place.

So your analogy doesn't quite hold up.


This analogy is curious too.

If Michael Bay's Armageddon was being praised by professional critics as a film to be reckoned with on the same level as a Hitchcock film, then I would feel obliged to give it more attention than it would otherwise deserve.

But in truth, nobody is; there is no critical hype surrounding Michael Bay in the way there is critical hype surrounding Christopher Nolan.

And so bitching about the fact Michael Bay's films are taken too seriously by people would be a 'waste of time and energy on an irrelevant tangent', because it'd actually be a straw man argument, fighting against something nobody has actually said.

But with Christopher Nolan....

Haha, yeah, everything is everything and therefore nothing is nothing and we're all just playing out a meaningless existence to a universal rhythm in an ultimately indifferent because finite cosmos.

OH NO!

There's always going to be a 'bigger problem' than the one you're addressing.

But then we come back to personal interests and what we actively invest ourselves in whilst here on this mortal earth. And I'm interested in art, in films in particular; and as a social being with some consciousness as to my own 'social being-ness', I'm also by extension interested - as anybody with a serious interest in anything ought to be - in the social, political, historical forces at work in and around such art, which is why in order to fully understand and give proper critical attention to something such as Inception, you've got to also look at the baggage that comes with it.

Wow you're very pissy today. Your whole rant doesn't hold up.

Did I just out Capo you?

Ha! That, or you out-Ronnied yourself.

We're both good proper reactionaries.

Finally watched Inglourious Basterds (2009) tonight, and it surely has Tarantino written all over it. It was good, just haven't decided yet whether it was that good. QT tends to be slow in spots, and somewhat condescending to viewers (and in that respect, he didn't disappoint here). If it was a true story, then it'd be great. But it's not a true story.

In the end, I don't think it was "all that"

Ha.

what's the difference if it's a true story or not? would you like it better if he put a "based on a true story" banner in the opening like Fargo?

I give you that the ending twist is a bit over the top but I don't see why should we give a shit about it being true or not. a lot of things that happened in past years, if I had seen'em in a movie before I'd laugh and say "it's just movies" like a killer tsunami washing New Orleans out of the map? an airplanes crash in air(Brazil baby) ? an austrian guy who had his wife and daughters locked in a basement and raped for decades? come on don't let that ruin such a fun film!

I think Geoff was being a smartass.

care to elaborate for someone who's not been around what you mean by that?

btw- Armageddon is not the worst movie out there. Transformers is.

The whole concept of "The Bastards'" unit is completely grounded in fiction and extremely disrespectful to the real men and women of that war.

To imply that a mercenary unit, affiliated with the American army, would go on vigilante raids bashing Nazi skulls with baseball bats is utterly asinine. If anything, the American and British troops were known for being extremely prudent and considerate with regards to how they treated the German people, their country, their artifacts, and their prisoners of war.

Vigilante tactics are sometimes a part of war, yes, and WWII was no exception; but the entire notion of an unmerciful band of American savages, commiting war crimes at every turn by scouring the countryside for Nazi scalps, couldn't portray the American army any more inaccurately. It's not worth desecrating the legacy of American soldiers just so some jerkoff fan-boy loser can exploit it to make a shitty film.

If anything, it was the Russians who plundered, pillaged and outright purged Berlin and the countryside at their will. QT could have made a film similiar to this involving Russian vigilantism, and that would have had some grounds for historical relevance, but that probably wouldn't make a mark on American Cinema, would it.

Quentin Tarentino is a whore. On the other hand, the cinematography in this film is BRILLIANT...and the man does know how to tell a story, even if it's a complete misrepresentation of the facts. But then again, who couldn't make a great story about WWII?? I just wish a modern director could accurately capture the true drama of the whole ordeal, it could make for a huge blockbuster.

The fact that QT spent a decade making this picture makes it a real exercise in futilism despite its fleeting moments of brilliance.

Matrix 2 and 3 are the worst films ever..

Read up the last few RRA/Capo bitchings in this thread.



Nope, its MANOS: HANDS OF FATE.

Hell those MST3K guys who had to piss it agree it was the worst piece of shit they had to sit through, which is quite shocking considering the hundreds of awful movies they had to watch over what decade or so plus or minus worth of seasons?

But then the key question is, why is Inglorious Basterds 'fun'?

It's a pretty reprehensible film.

And this is even more reprehensible:

Yeah, but that ain't a film meant to be paid for to see.

Was MANOS an insult and a huge stain on such a great industry and franchise like Transformers? I doubt it. Bay's decisions even before filming began proved that he had no respect for the history and legacy of Transformers, and it's a damn shame that someone like that was chosen for it. The movie is despicable, I don't know if I'll watch the sequels.

I forgot Tom Cruise was the star of Valkyrie (2008); and at times, I didn't "see" him in the role, which is a very good thing. Overall, I thought it was well done. I really like it, and would have liked our global human history more had they succeeded.

Liked it too.

I remember when it came out how the media already was setting it up as a failure because by then Tom Cruise went from King of Hollywood to nutjob couchjumping has-been, and boy they were ready to cut him down.

Except it turned out to be pretty good, certainly reminded me of those Alistair MacLean precise World War 2 thrillers, except it was based on a true story.

Besides those critics got to finally use their sharpened knives on KNIGHT & DAY. Which I must admit, I kinda enjoyed. Yeah sorry guys. I failed ya'll.

Except if those plotters had succeeded in knocking off Hitler, would it have ended WW2 quicker? I mean they were banking on the idea of a WWI-stylized armistice where the government would effectively stay in place, country unoccupied...but would the Allies have accepted that?

Bay is an asshole, and a hack. But to say his works are the worst ever made is...well, this might be the only time I might defend that fucker.

Besides, I would argue his Flying Asteroid picture and that war movie where Japan bombed an American love triangle were much more shockingly wasteful and bad.

That sounds like a great "what if" post. The question is "which allies"? The Soviet Union wanted payback and an end to the Nazi regime in toto. They wouldn't have accepted any sort of separate German peace deal with Great Britain and the US. By the time of the plot the Russians were already in the process of clearing the Germans from Belorussia, the Ukraine and Poland.

Five Deadly Venoms (1978)
I saw this as a kid and was entranced. I watched it again the other night and was surprised to see that it had aged pretty well.

The story is simple. The dying head of the Poison Clan has is worried that his former students are up to no good. He instructs his last student Yang, to go out into the world and discover the whereabouts of his five greatest students, all masters of kung fu, and determine if they are using their powers for good or evil. Yang knows a little of each of the other students' styles but can't hope to defeat any one of them on his own.
The Five Deadly Venoms are:

Toad-simple brutal power and completely impervious to most harm.
Snake-very quick style of striking with fingers and can fight on his back
Scorpion-powerful kicking attacks and uses poison
Lizard-Also very quick and can climb/fight from walls
Centipede-Also called One Thousand hands and uses a lightning fast combination of kicks and punches, flips and rolls.

Even the other students don't know who each person is and this winds up in a end of movie five man fight to the finish. Great stuff.
Typical dialogue:

Judge: On the night that the Yuens died, did you see this man?
Wan Fan: Yes.
Judge. All right. Well, he denies the crime. Use torture.

Watching "The Blues Brothers" again for the Nth time! This movie was just amazing. How the heck did they get Cab Calloway, John Lee Hooker, Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin and James Brown? Not to mention the hilarious John Candy (Orange Whip?) and Henry Gibson as a Nazi! Just one great line after another.

Alot of those plotters shared this idea, even espoused by desperate (delusional) top Nazis in the last days of the war, that somehow they could deal an armistice with the Western powers and then team up to fight the Bolsheviks.

Putting aside the sillyness of such a notion, the West in 1945 quite frankly didn't have the heart, hunger, and strength to fight the Russians which perhaps is a good reason why the Soviets won Eastern Europe at Yalta.

Or maybe a negotiated peace isn't so impossible with Hitler-less Germany. We must remember Japan accepted surrender when the West allowed them to retain their Emperor as Head of State because we thought it was an acceptable price to end that damn war.

Dead Man Running
This British gangster film starred Tamer Hassan, Danny Dyer, 50 Cent and Monet Mazur. It is very much in homage to Guy Ritchie's earlier work-somewhat too much so.

Anyway the plot is that top gangster/loan shark 50 Cent (it's not really explained how an American is big time in the UK underworld unless the writers really thought 50 was doing an English accent) decides that because of the failing economy now would be a good time to start calling in all of his outstanding loans, starting with the 100K owed to him by ex-con Hassan. 50 Cent gives Hassan 24 hrs to come up with the money. Otherwise he's going to have one of his Luca Brasi type psychos kill Hassan's mother before 50 kills Hassan.

So Hassan and his partner Dyer go on a crime spree to raise the money. Of course 50 really would just rather kill Hassan and has put out the word on the street that no one is to loan Hassan any money or do any business with him.

The audio for this film wasn't mixed properly IMO and it's difficult at times to hear the dialogue over the background sounds. Of course the thick "accents" make this even more difficult though presumably this would not be an issue for UK viewers. It does get better near the end-the sound not the story.