[QuickTidal]

blackzoid, on 16 February 2014 - 10:13 PM, said:

I don't get how the lack of R rated violence is a problem personally. It doesn't have to be needlessly violent to tell the story it wants to tell. Original be damned. Vern liked it too, which is all the confirmation I need that, yes, this remake deserves to exist and has something to say. (Drones are bad.)

I totally agree on this point.

[McLovin]

QuickTidal, on 17 February 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

blackzoid, on 16 February 2014 - 10:13 PM, said:

I don't get how the lack of R rated violence is a problem personally. It doesn't have to be needlessly violent to tell the story it wants to tell. Original be damned. Vern liked it too, which is all the confirmation I need that, yes, this remake deserves to exist and has something to say. (Drones are bad.)

I totally agree on this point.

OK, so the point I was trying to make here was that it's a tone issue. We're going for all these morally ambiguous issues of militarizing police and medical ethics, yet Murphy blasts his way into and through a warehouse full of baddies with no warrant and in what must be total defiance of any kind of arrest protocol. Worse, this sequence is all presented as a bloodless videogame, bad guys get shot, they drop, no blood, no screaming. No consequences that the viewer can see. As a result, I'm not quite sure how serious the movie is about stuff. If we're going to restrain ourselves from the consequences of the violence, that's fine, but then let's restrain the violence itself too. Either that, or go whole hog and show us the splatter. Be consistent.

[blackzoid]

At some stage the wish to tell a story about consequences of actions will conflict with the commercial realities of cinema and rating changes since the 80's.(The new Die Hards are another example that come to my mind. The only difference is, I think the new Die Hards are terrible) I actually did like Robocops use of a taser as a sorta-pseudo explanation for some cases. And did we really need to see the ED 209 riddle that kid in the opening? Have people lost the powers of imagination that, ya those people got blown to bits off camera but if I don't see it, it doesn't count? It counted for me. I can spare some sympathy for the poor schmucks anyway.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 18 February 2014 - 10:24 AM

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Perhaps, but if the point is that DRONES ARE BAD, then they have to show it, or it doesnt really carry the weight. If drones are bombing weddings and mosques in real life, the reason most people dont give a fuck is because we don't see it.

And if new Robocop is just using tasers/stun guns, then that needed to be made more clear.

This post has been edited by Spoilsport Stonny: 18 February 2014 - 12:39 PM

[blackzoid]

True, thats a pov that I can't completedly argue against. The fact that our current news really doesn't show the effects of drones as horrible as they really are. So, I guess Robocop doesn't follow through on its condemnation. But, it never could, not if it planned to make a profit. (When was the last time there was a major big film that was R rated anyway? Was it a Tarrantino film maybe? Don't think his films were ever majorly expensive to make)

I'm not sure if Robocop 100% sticks to tasers throughout. He certainly does use them sometimes. As well as lethal ammunition other times though.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 18 February 2014 - 05:12 PM

[McLovin]

He doesn't. His right hand (the human one) used a taser, but the left (machine) used a machine pistol. Though at the very end, he switches the lethal weapon to his human hand to

Spoiler

take out Sellars - EDIT actually by this time iirc his left arm is actually blown off, so he has to use the right hand, but I think the point is still the same

. That's all probably intended as symbolism.

EDIT contained in spoilers.

This post has been edited by McLovin: 18 February 2014 - 05:32 PM

[amphibian]

blackzoid, on 18 February 2014 - 05:11 PM, said:

(When was the last time there was a major big film that was R rated anyway? Was it a Tarrantino film maybe? Don't think his films were ever majorly expensive to make)

American Hustle made $140+ million and it had an R rating.

However, your criteria of "major big film" is a bit harder to 1) define and 2) find. I deemed it to mean one of those tentpole movies that cost a ton to make and are relied upon to get big money in as well.

The best I could find was A Good Day to Die Hard, which cost about $100 million to make and had an R rating. Otherwise, it's been a steady stream of PG-13 movies ever since Watchmen didn't do that awesome for its money and R rating.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 18 February 2014 - 10:02 PM, said:

blackzoid, on 18 February 2014 - 05:11 PM, said:

(When was the last time there was a major big film that was R rated anyway? Was it a Tarrantino film maybe? Don't think his films were ever majorly expensive to make)

American Hustle made $140+ million and it had an R rating.

However, your criteria of "major big film" is a bit harder to 1) define and 2) find. I deemed it to mean one of those tentpole movies that cost a ton to make and are relied upon to get big money in as well.

The best I could find was A Good Day to Die Hard, which cost about $100 million to make and had an R rating. Otherwise, it's been a steady stream of PG-13 movies ever since Watchmen didn't do that awesome for its money and R rating.

OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN. Pure 90's-style action flick, FULL of bloody headshots and over-the-top violence.

[amphibian]

QuickTidal, on 19 February 2014 - 12:10 PM, said:

OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN. Pure 90's-style action flick, FULL of bloody headshots and over-the-top violence.

That cost $70 million to make - which means it's not actually a tentpole movie as they normally come (budgets over $100 million). It did very well, but wasn't expected to carry the studio through for the year a la The Avengers, Mission Impossible 4 or whatever.

Your chosen movie doesn't fit the criteria, but Django Unchained does with its $100 million budget. So does Elysium ($115 million budget), The Wolf of Wall Street ($100 m), Prometheus ($130 m), The Expendables 2 ($100 m) and Cloud Atlas ($100+ million).

I did a terrible job looking at things the first time around. Looks like most of the big flops weren't R rated movies, but some of these (Elysium and Cloud Atlas) didn't do that well in comparison to external expectations. Django and Wolf seem to have done extremely well while Prometheus and Expendables 2 did alright. The biggest flop was probably RIPD, a PG13 movie which cost $130 m and made nowhere near that. After Earth (the Scientology movie made by Will Smith and the Scientologists) also bombed badly and that was PG or PG13..

[polishgenius]

There were some pretty big duds last year. The worst was probably The Lone Ranger- it technically made it's budget back, but almost none of that was in America - where it made 90mil- and a combination of that (less of the international gross goes to the studio) and a ludicrous advertising spend meant Disney lost fucking bucketloads on it.

The only major one that was R-rated was I think Oldboy (which has made a truly hilarious 4mil worldwide off a 35mil budget).

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 19 February 2014 - 05:28 PM, said:

The only major one that was R-rated was I think Oldboy (which has made a truly hilarious 4mil worldwide off a 35mil budget).

Indeed and that was two-fold. Spike Lee was apparently a huge dick about it during press...and the fact that the original Korean flick is pretty damned untouchable. They may as well try and remake BATTLE ROYALE (which also wouldn't fly).

It will honestly NEVER cease to amaze me that Hollywood feels the need to remake current foreign language films in English. I mean shit, just release them here with subtitles, and push the shit out of them. It's not hard, and can succeed in spades (CROUCHING TIGER, THE RAID).

Hell even on TV: UTOPIA coming on HBO, GRACEPOINTE (BROADCHURCH), and even THE RETURNED...it's...it's irritating. That's what it is. Irritating. Just watch the original FFS.

Watch ABRES LOS OJOS....not VANILLA SKY (for example)

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 19 February 2014 - 05:49 PM

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Yo, BK, here is part two of that Robocop review i posted ladt week. I havent watched it yet, but i thought i'd link it while it was still fresh in muh head.

http://redlettermedi...g-robocop-2014/

[A Demon Llama!]

LEGO was good. I wouldn't recommend the 3D as it made the colours really washed out and 3D was not spectacular. You NEED bright colours for that movie. Although maybe its the particular theatres fault.

[Gothos]

Dallas Buyers Club... very interesting. McConasomething is amazing, I can see why he took the role with all its requirements - couldn't quite take him seriously as an actor before, but now with this film and True Detective he's gona wild with awesome. I recommend everyone sees this.

[worry]

I would suggest Frailty for some good MM work before his current resurgence. Pretty great and unique (but overlooked) little horror/thriller. Not nearly as good or ambitious as True Detective but definitely solid and clever in its own right.

[amphibian]

Honestly, Sahara is a good doofy treasure hunt movie. I say this because Steve Zahn is in there too. He's got something like a 90% track rate for "at least watchable, but usually good" movies for me.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 21 February 2014 - 01:40 PM, said:

Honestly, Sahara is a good doofy treasure hunt movie. I say this because Steve Zahn is in there too. He's got something like a 90% track rate for "at least watchable, but usually good" movies for me.

I saw SAHARA in theatres, and I WANTED it to be better than it was, but you're right, it's still fairly entertaining for what it was. And it WAS supposed to launch a whole series of Dirk Pitt (played by Matthew) movies...and I'm kinda sad it didn't. That would have been a sweet franchise.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

MUD is also a great recent MM film as well. And "great" is an understatement.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Finally got to see DREDD over the weekend. Holy shit, that was some rollicking good fun! I don't think it needs much more praise other than I liked the violence.

Also I wanna embrace my tender side here: just saw this movie starring James Gandolfini and Julia Louis Dreyfuss called ENOUGH SAID. Now, its kind of a chick flick, but the actors (it also has Toni Collette and Catherine Keener) really take the material and run with it. Its certainly about relationships, especially that of middle aged divorcees with children, and that's obvioulsy not uncharted territory. But the storyline and the script and the way its broken up into 3 acts is really a nice breath of fresh air in that many movies of this roomantic comedy genre are trying to do the ensemble thing that ties all kinds of threads together. This was different and well acted and really well paced. Gandolfini showed his range here, and I would have loved to see him in more movies like this. Julia Louis Dreyfuss was excellent, and really very convincing in her role. Keener, as always was a delight to watch. I don't know if there is a better actress out there. And TOni Collette is always a pleasure. Also the kids who played the teenagers did a wonderful job of not looking like stereotypes and having some kind of depth. I really liked this movie, despite it not at all being in my comfort zone. Gotta be equitable when one is married, and sometime venturing out from the norm can be rewarding. Carry on...

[QuickTidal]

Finally got out to see THE LEGO MOVIE, and it was not only very entertaining, but has a bit of an emotional gut punch in the final 3rd which I wasn't expecting but was a nice surprise. Above and beyond that, the entire narrative had a clever, but simple point.

And Batman steals the show.

Second show stealers: Green Lantern being clingy to Superman.