RULES HERE >>1
Check for weekly movie nights >>6
Movies, TV shows, Cartoon/Animes, Documentaries. Everything goes.
I just watched Blade Runner 2049 yesterday. It was pretty fucking good.
I've also been watching Ken Burns The Vietnam War and will start to watch Initial D later.
What are you a weeb....
I've been watching some Serial Experimental Lain, I still don't understand what's going on, and also watching the new Dragon Quest anime it's pretty good too bad it doesn't have that god-like OP we used to have in the arabic version, and for documentaries I always start watching Empire of Dust but I sleep half-way through it, it's not bad but I always pick a bad time to watch it
Hardly anything he does registers to me as expressive, it's like the ANTI-THESIS of expression to me, unless expression means having layers of differing lights. It's effectively just a series of colors and lights with no meaning, and I think it's representative of the commercialization on post-meaning. That's probably why it resonates with people because they can see the meaninglessness in his stuff and get stimulated by it. Here Blade Runner has a bunch of basic off-center and sporadically placed entities in a frame with no center just like a Marienbad shot, but the thing about it is this lack of any artistic integrity beyond just technically serving the compositions.
Yes, I see the behind the scenes for blade runner having the ring light, and yes I see all the colors in blade runner, but it's honestly a match made-in-heaven in a negative/postive way for that movie since it's about the banality and loss of life sense, loss of life essence in future noir setting, and it's adapted from being japan-run in old Blade Runner 80s, to being like a bunch of cheap-ass paper-thin architecture like new apartments they build nowadays. It's all very cheap and fake-modernist looking just like a whole bunch of the state of architecture and fashion today. The scene where Ryan is in the archive room with the yellow lighting and all the drawers have like fake woodgrain is clearly a conscious decision and fits along with the fake modernism of Deakins' photography, but there's no essence, there's no person behind the technique. It's just technique. I'm struggling to even describe it right now, but I can make a second review working out my deeper thoughts on this movie.
The only notable shot I remember from here that stands out is this one because the way the light bounces off the wall with no visible window. Background is just no light. Not impressive.
It's interesting how looking at all these latest cinematographers, their aspects are mainly about what subtle accentuations to the gradation of the photography are changed between. Like this Hoytema guy is very reminiscent of a lot of indie stuff and it's almost nigh impossible to tell the difference amongst all of them because of perhaps how the cameras just are today or perhaps like how scores for movies are subdued now mainly versus long long ago. To me I see it that all these new digital cinematographers that propped up since pretty much Deakins where Brother Art Thou and the sudden wave of DSLR's and stuff in 2010's, that they took kind of the rote way of how to shoot things with the same mid eye-level shots and also sticking late day hazy, kinda evening indoors look for everything or either blueish daytime look with hardly any sun and the main distinction ends up being picking up the rich parts to the gradation, the gradients of brown.
Something like pic related. All brown and dark tinted, very low lighting 'cause that's how digital supposedly shines best with is being more lightly lighted, not heavily lighted like old ways. And I'm pointing out a shot like that there because I can tell that that look there is something a buncha filmbuffs would go gaga over but it's nigh indistinguishable from a lot of the trends in that look throughout the 2010's. Perhaps though he set that up being the norm since that screenshot is from 2011 on the dot.
I see looking at screenshots from this movie that indie guys MAYBE intended to MIMIC this guy's look, 'cause you see this type of look all OVER indies and eventually spread to taking over all serious Hollywood movies moving forward. John Wick has that same gradient 'cept it's just not lit brown, lit with purple. But it still has that same look.
I think that's probably REALLY why a movie like The Master sticks out in people's recent minds. Because in trying to mimic Kubrick's structuralist frames (structuralist frames are frames like that Master sea shot with Joaquin layed down), he separates from the rest of everybody else that's mega into just being basic mid-shots with no real sense of composition or meaning. Mid-shots and closeups became the norm ever since the 90s, particularly when the aspect ration solidified into 2:35:1 as opposed to 1:88:1. When it got into the 235 things got very very squeezed and that shot of Keanu and above is what became the norm. It's something I just especially notice. It's ALMOST a type of photography that irritates me because it just wasn't the case at all before, cinematographers, directors were so much more creative before. I don't really know how to describe the types of these shots cause they're not designed with any meaning, it's just merely what became the standardized way to shoot in Hollywood moving forward into the 2010's. Then for comedies everything is fairly wide and basic 2-shot, characters sitting next to one another in the same frame, not against, but to the side of one another.
I'd say it's actually important to have a pic like this to compact the loss of identity and essence that looks to be our future judging by how aimless we are right now in the 21st century, BUT, I don't intend to look to dour on that being the case. I see things being renewed in the new generations. Deakins to me represents where prestige commercialism is at. That they're stifled for creativity in any capacity but they're increasing their technical acumen to stratospheric heights. And what I mean by "essence" is essence in terms of an individual quality that's beyond being typified. A lot of things can be typified very easily and quickly because that's the generality of reality. But it's not so easily that case. There's a lot of HIDDEN potential and discovery, creativity that comes from somebody really peering in and deeply exploring their identities, their existence. That leads to great art.
I find their stuff more enriching and emboldening than where the state of prestige commercialism is at, The Oscars, the work of Deakins, and so forth. It's all fake bourgeois with the prestige works versus either the highest in Hollywood that are actually determining our fates, Disney and the megacorps. It's either the megacorps or the small, the middle prestige like Deakins I see no use for, they're wasting space. When I see Deakins, I get absolutely nothing from, no sense of emotion, no life, no essence. It's just empty. Even Lubezki I find better. I actually got Tree of Life on bluray cause it was so cheap. I like that aspect of shooting, getting that camera nice and handheld INTO the scenes, really being part of it and not removed, but it's just the characters as human beings are nothing in it, the movie's very wafer-thin in what it's trying to do and show.
And it IS important to show a dearth of life with no sarcasm or even satire like a Sandler picture, but it's very feigned to me. Feigned in a way with the expectation of being considered quality. Every decision Deakins makes doesn't come from artistic creativity, it's just workmanlike plucking of basic modernist photography traits but absolutely drained of any intent or meaning. Let me share this pic comparison between Gordon and Deakins that I made a long time ago, because this really distilled down my major gripes, to be able to SEE the differences.
Call it cherrypicking and false equivalent shot selections, but the point of my comparison pictures are supposed to illustrate in that image is the aspect of cultural shifts and differences. Differentiation over time, what I'm concerned about, not singularly aesthetically minded, more about the bigger picture, the entirety. I wouldn't say it's just a matter sincerity because we're all going through new sincerity of expression in ourselves today. Even Deakins is sincere, but his work lacks the actual power of Gordon Willis. In this shot here, Brando's face with the black lighting on his eyes is more painful, more sorrowful. Deakins is more cold like Kubrick and for that being the case, he's more representative of our times today where people don't know what pain and struggle actually is and means. Jesse James really DOES looks like shampoo commercial compared to Bad Company.
Is there a movie were Galatea doesnt fucking dies?
The west has a hate boner against her.
That seems to be the pattern. It's a symptom of the rampant misandry. No, not only are there no good women because cultural imprinting turned them into whores, and not only can you not make your own loyal, loving alternative, you can't even live the fantasy vicariously through cinema because we're vindictive, jealous bitches. The only ones that are likely to escape the guillotine are manipulative, stronk types that stroke their whore egos like the Ex Machina succubus.
I will never forgive them
I just finished watching The Blob (1988) because I saw the Red Letter Media video discussing it and it piqued my curiosity. I normally hate any film that has even mild horror elements because I'm a huge baby and I can't stand the tension when I know something bad is going to happen to a character but I'm waiting for the knife to drop. This movie did have plenty of that, especially in the early phases when the blob is only the size of a dog or a person, and it did make me feel just as anxious as I thought it would.
I was able to get through it, and I'm glad that I did because it was a very tight, focused movie that didn't waste my time or have any poz like everything made these days. Some deaths were pretty gruesome to the point that I had to look at a different part of the screen, but the tension and suspense were crafted very well. I always had a clear idea of how the monster was evolving and the characters never felt like they were holding the idiot ball or acting in a contrived way. I was really surprised that one of the kids died in the sewer section since that kind of stuff is a big no-no in American cinema; it caught me completely off guard and made me wonder who else was going to die.
Definitely recommend it. I found a clean torrent on 1337 easily and downloaded it within 10 minutes, so it's not hard to find.
I've been going back and watching a lot of Godzilla films. Really liked them as a kid and they're still really fun to watch. Looking forward to pic related because I never got around to it when it came out.
Also the 1998 movie is far worse then I remember.
It's pretty good, my first Godzilla movie and now I get why this series is important, the series does have it's fun action but also has it's own special way of artistic expression.
I watched it when I was a wee little lad, good movie. I guess I will rewatch it.
After watching The Blob as I mentioned in >>177 I decided to get over another horror film, which I had often seen parodied and referenced but never actually watched myself: John Carpenter's The Thing.
It's good. If you've seen the movie then you know why it's good because it's one of those works that commands your attention. The initial few minutes were a bit boring, but once the story gets going there are a tonne of small details that kept me engaged. I though there would be more monster scenes, but huge stretches of the film are spent watching the men go at each other's throats. That was a pleasant surprise and much more gripping because it makes the monster scenes hit much harder. When I watched The Blob, I felt like every scene where someone was alone would lead to a gruesome death and it made me anxious, but watching The Thing made me feel tense in a much less fearful way. The only thing that really put me off the movie was the lingering shots of gore and viscera we get near the start, but that's just me being squeamish.
If you haven't seen it yet, then I totally recommend it: the film's praises are richly deserved. Just like before, I found a 1080p version on 1337 and downloaded it within half an hour.
I watched the Blade movie trilogy over the last week (again due to an RLM video) and I was pleasantly surprised. There's something about the 90s style - trenchcoat, black leather, swords/knives, dual pistols, sunglasses indoors and at night, etc. - that I really enjoy even to this day. Maybe I watched too much Trigun at a formative age. In any case, I think the Blade movies may be the only film series I've ever seen where the second movie is better than the first - not just that it handles its themes better or that it has more of the setting to use, but its structure is better and the characters are used for better actions.
Pure 90s cheese and about a 50/50 split between the good (Wesley Snipes calling people mothafuckas and shooting guns) and the bad (the villains trying to make me care about them). What I found puzzling was the action: some of it is shot well, since Snipes was one of the choreographers and he's a martial artist, so you have longer and wider shots that actually let me see what the actors are doing. Then you have some truly bewildering shots where the camera is moving so fast and everything is so blurred that I literally can't see what's going on. The movie is longer than it needs to be and the visual effects have not aged well, particularly the stuff at the end, but if you have some time to spare and you want to see gunfire and swordfights then it's worth your time.
An improvement over the first, which shouldn't come as a surprise since it was directed by Guillermo del Toro before he drank the Kool-Aid. The cast is more like an ensemble, since we have Blade, Whistler coming back from the dead, Whistler's replacement (played by a young Norman Reedus), the usual vampires, a new strain of vampires, and half a dozen vampires that Blade teams up with. There's a lot more CGI this time and the action is mostly focused on guns instead of martial arts, but the character beats are simple and always present - thus, the action isn't mindless and I actually care what's happening onscreen. Genuinely a solid action movie that doesn't come with any caveats about its quality aside from the usual stylistic choices of an early 00s Hollywood film. The new strain of vampires look really stupid, I suppose, but that's the only real problem.
Total trash and not worth anyone's time. Blade fights Dracula and teams up with a previously unknown cell of vampire hunters. Dracula gets played by some square-headed dude with a buzz cut and barely does anything throughout the entire plot. The vampire hunter cell has some bitch who can't act or throw a punch, Patton Oswalt (who thankfully dies), and Ryan Reynolds of all people, whose character tries to be funny in every single scene and doesn't succeed even once. I don't normally care much about celebrities, but it's really impressive that the writers managed to make a comic relief character played by Ryan Reynolds into someone I wanted to die at the end of the film. Triple H also plays one of Dracula's henchmen, but he doesn't do much.
There are no circumstances under which anyone would or should enjoy watching Blade Trinity. I will forever use it as an example of Hollywood filmmaking ruining what should have been a fun concept. It's a real shame.
Just watched whiplash and damn is it good, the whole dynamic between andrew and fletcherr is fucking great and I'm sucker for good jazz music.
Did you watch it lads, if you do tell me what did you think about it.
Finished The Hill (1965) starring Sean Connery. It is about an officer (Sean himself) who is arrested for attacking his superior and taken to a prison in northern Africa. Said prison is basically a holding place for all of her majesty's soldiers who tried fleeing, stealing, or anything else of that nature. Some of the officers and men in charge run an extremely disciplined prison that ultimately leads to big issues later in the movie.
As for what I thought about it, I will say I very much recommend it. The movie is set in WW2, but the viewer is only aware of within the prison. This is a pretty nice change from every movie being set in the time period having to lecture on the sides involved. Instead it focuses only on the Brits and the men who are imprisoned there. I came into this movie to see another Sean Connery film, but was just as impressed with Harry Andrews and Ian Hendry who help ratchet up the tension. The start of the film sets the stage, but you really start to feel the tension the longer the movie goes on. As both sides of the conflict seem to start losing it and lashing out.
I go through short binges now followed by long periods of watching nothing
last one included Hostiles, which was great until the plot started to fall apart culminating in that increasingly terrible ending
Sisters Brothers, which was very well done all around and not the kind of quasi-McFarlane tier comedy satire I expected just from Dr Steve Brule's casting
also grabbed the True Grit remake and Ballad of Lefty Brown, yet to watch those though
i dont know man, i liked the frame in sicario. i dont get the atpm and prisoners. both look alright.
I just finished watching the recent Godzilla/King Kong movies, which had human drama that good to awful and monster fights that were generally wicked.
I remember seeing this in a movie theatre and enjoying it a lot; the sound design deserves special mention, since Godzilla has a very distinct roar which starts out high pitched and shrieking before lowering to a ululation from the back of his throat. Upon rewatching it I found that it held up as both a monster movie and a disaster movie, since Godzilla is treated like a natural disaster/force of nature in this film. There's a tonne of buildup before you see him properly, which is both a good and bad thing. It makes the actual reveal of Godzilla feel much more meaningful because he truly looks and behaves like some prehistoric behemoth, but it means that the human drama accounts for a larger portion of the entire film. While Bryan Cranston is on the screen, that's fine, but he dies at the end of the first act and the rest of the actors and characters are just not very interesting. The protagonist is a bog standard military character, and although the actor plays him well he just doesn't have a personality.
The monsters, however, are great, and I think the MUTOs are solid additions to the monsters of Godzilla film canon. They are good foils to Godzilla himself and they also feel like part of a natural world that existed on a different scale. They have sexual dimorphism, and the female being larger visually underscore their more insectoid designs. The only thing I can really say about the monsters in this movie are that I'd have liked to see more of them.
>Kong Skull Island
A combination of Vietnam-era adventure and the classic King Kong story about a team of filmmakers/researchers going to an uninhabited island to find an ancient monster. Genuinely a really good movie, with good performances from most of the cast and great monster effects. Kong himself steals the show, and the team obviously put a lot of effort into making him feel like he fit into the Skull Island ecosystem (at the top, of course). He feels like a real character with a personality, which I think is intentional since Godzilla in these movies is more like a pure hunter compared to Kong being a guardian.
The movie is held back by some of the human actors/characters not being very good, but overall it's a great combination of an ensemble cast and giant monsters fighting each other. Even if you have no intention of watching the rest of the series, I very strongly recommend seeing this one.
>Godzilla King of the Monsters
As with the previous movies, the monster fights are great; the hook this time is that the government agency from Kong Skull Island has facilities all over the world containing giant monsters, when one of them is attacked by an eco-terrorist group and the lead scientist woman is kidnapped along with a macguffin device she built that can control/signal monsters by replicating their bioacoustic calls/cries, which is a subtheme throughout these movies. The group uses the device to awaken Ghidorah, frozen in a block of ice in Antarctica, who proceeds to wreak havoc and attempt to establish himself as the alpha of every monster in the world.
The bioacoustic stuff is a decent story gimmick, and it puts more emphasis on the sound design. I like the sound design a lot more than I probably should in this movie just because it's used in simple, effective ways: every monster has a distinct cry, and you can tell when they feel pain or anger or other emotions. Ghidorah himself is rendered incredibly well, and he really feels like his own monster in contrast to Godzilla and the rest of them. The final confrontation between him and Godzilla is a real treat; there's a story running alongside the monster fight that shows what it's like at ground level when two of them clash, and the sheer scale of everything is just fucking insane.
The reason I spend so much time discussing the monsters is because the human drama is by far the worst out of all these monster movies. The human characters have almost no personalities or arcs, and there are way too many of them. You can literally just skip everything but the monster scenes and you wouldn't lose anything.
>Godzilla vs Kong
I think the team behind this was the team responsible for Kong Skull Island, because the human characters are much more tolerable. This time Kong and Godzilla finally meet and fight to see which one of them is the real king of the monsters, but if you know anything about monster movies then you'll know they eventually unite in the face of a common enemy. A really good movie, mostly because the monsters are at the forefront of it all and the special effects and monster fights continue to impress me.
There are two main groups of human characters, one of whom is doing their own thing and the other which is following Kong: the former is pretty annoying because they're all comedy relief characters but the movie is shot in the traditional Hollywood style which absolutely crushes any visual comedy or soul their scenes might have had. The humans following Kong around are better, and the "stuck-up bitch" character that all Western writers seem to love actually gets what's coming to her at the climax of the movie, which was a very pleasant surprise.
Overall, the movies consistently have great special effects and the human characters are generally solid as long as they're interacting with Kong instead of standing around a table talking about Godzilla or technobabble. Thanks to the age of streaming, all the day 1 torrents are movierips, so all the movies can easily be found on 1337x. I recommend them to anyone who wants to see giant monsters fight each other, but if you do decide to watch them then you should allow at least a day or two for each movie to cool off. There's so much noise and violence in each one that watching them back to back will definitely overwhelm your sensibilities.
How is Kong Skull Island compared to the 2005 film? I recently watched it for the first time yesterday and I enjoyed it. Some of the CGI has aged, but thankfully not Kong and the creatures in Skull Island. There's a decent amount of giant monsters fighting, although there's not much of Kong fighting creatures compared to newer films. Characters were great, and even Jack Black did great as not-Orson Welles. Film length is long, but it didn't felt like a waste.
I haven't watched the 2005 film in a long time, but I recall it being a more straightforward adaptation of the classic King Kong story, complete with a sad ending and lots of human drama. Kong Skull Island is focused on the monsters first, because it's meant to be part of a larger film series and more of action movie than the 2005 film. You don't meet the islanders until the characters have already encountered and fought several types of monsters, and the climax of the movie is a monster fight rather than Kong climbing the Empire State Building. I think the human performances in the 2005 film were overall stronger, so it's probably a "better" film if you wanted to see the characters interacting with each other and connect with them.
Honestly, they're both really good movies and I think if you like one you'll like the other, simply for different reasons.
I watched Thor Ragnarok with my parents last night after being suckered in by the opening premise of Thor and Loki being flung to the far end of the universe and having to fight their way back. It was a movie with some decent moments but which was ruined by the usual Marvel poz and Feige-style anti-comedy. The premise is such:
>Thor defeats a giant monster who wanted to bring about Ragnarok and destroy Asgard
>Upon returning to his father, Odin, he realizes that Loki is impersonating him and has hidden the real Odin on earth
>They go to earth but can't find him
>Dr Strange tells them Odin is in Norway and teleports them there
>Odin tells them that Ragnarok is coming and he's dying, then he dies
>Hela, Odin's firstborn daughter appears, and destroys Thor's hammer
>Loki panics and tries to return them both to Asgard, but Hela hops onto the Bifrost after them and throws them out of it
>This places them at the far end of the universe on a planet that is the universe's junk heap
>Thor is kidnapped and taken into slavery as a gladiator by a negress valkyrie who works as a scrap trawler
>Hela arrives in Asgard and starts killing people
The movie is decent when it's focusing on Thor being a fish out of water on the junk planet, but there are a lot of """"jokes"""" that constantly undercut the action and earnestness. None of the men are allowed to be serious for more than 10 seconds without cracking a joke (by which I mean they stutter and forget how to finish a sentence), but of course the women get to beat them up without breaking a sweat, and suffer only mildly/temporarily until they can punch the men and assert their dominance. It's just disgusting how emasculated and weak-willed the men are, which is made worse by all the fugly women in the film. There is a sum total of one action/drama scene in the entire film that isn't punctuated by a joke.
Thor Ragnarok honestly has so many jokes that it feels like more of a comedy than anything, which clashes with all the grand space fantasy stuff it's trying to do. Thor, Loki, the Hulk, the nigger valkyrie, Hela, Hela's goons, and a few other characters I'm surely forgetting are all lined up at the end, but none of them has any meaningful characterization because they all tell """"jokes"""" the same way and sound the same. Making matters worse are the VFX, which are serviceable but not integrated well into the film or action. It's painfully obvious when the characters are just talking to each other on a soundstage and when they're being replaced by 3D body doubles in the action shots, which is exacerbated by the constant cuts away from the action to some boring shot of a character's face. The lack of weight is a real problem, and the insistence on shot/reverse shot """"comedy"""" cinematography makes every scene feel the same.
I would not recommend seeing it. It had a few genuinely funny parts, but most of the movie was characters saying unfunny things and the film elbowing me in the ribs and saying "ehh? ehh? pretty quirky, ehh?" in a desperate attempt to hold my attention. I would have really enjoyed a simple space fantasy romp with Thor acting like a meathead, but that would have been too simple and too fun for Hollywood. This film reminded me of the Star Wars prequels: artificial, hollow, and trying to be too many things at once.
that's an issue with a lot of the MCU, sometimes I wanted it to just shut up for a bit and actually be serious but it always had to shoehorn a joke in somewhere. it works for iron man because of his eccentricity but for someone like captain america or thor i'd want them to actually take it more seriously. not full on SRSBSNS but some more self-awareness. infinity war was a good culmination of everything and had a darker overall mood which endgame proceeded to throw out the window for time travel paradoxes and a lukewarm final battle and was the peak of the MCU. i liked watching them for having an overarching story with a bunch of different characters, but now that the big event is over I don't really care for what happens afterward, except spider man maybe.
that's one of the funniest pics I've seen this week
FInished season 1 of Red Dwarf, I went into it thinking it was going to be a drama; that notion was dispelled in the first 10 seconds. It's a good start, quintessential britbong humor but I enjoyed it. Hopefully it gets even better with the later seasons.
I just watched Sorcerer (1977) today and I wanted to post something while it was fresh in my memory. The film is the second adaptation of the French novel Le Salaire de la Peur, or The Wages of Fear as it's more commonly known in English. I described that film in >>354, but the premise is that four men have to transport unstable nitroglycerine across several hundred miles in unstable trucks.
Sorcerer follow the same general story, but the cargo is cases of dynamite that have been stored improperly in the South American jungle, which has caused the nitro to leak out of them and pool in the bottom of their crates. The four main characters are an assassin, a man fleeing the Irish mob, a Palestinian militant who set a bomb in Israel, and a French banker who was accused of fraud and couldn't pay his collateral.
The movie had a bit of a troubled production due to being shot on location and is more "lopsided" than the French film. The editor fucking loves jump cuts, and there is no spoken English for the first 16 minutes - in fact, the subtitled version I found didn't include subtitles for all lines of dialogue, which made me think I was missing something. However, once the dynamite and driving were introduced around the halfway mark, the film quickly accelerated into some of the best tension I have ever seen. If you like tension or suspense at all, you owe it to yourself to watch this one.
Sorcerer is much grittier than The Wages of Fear, and it presents each obstacle and piece of action in a much shorter fashion: instead of coming across something in the road and having the characters observe and discuss it, the film will simply cut to an obstacle and let the image speak for itself. The characters don't speak much except to get on each others' nerves or to express some deep emotion when their backs are up against the wall, which I found to be extremely refreshing because I hate films that rely on dialogue too much. The film being in colour adds a lot to it being generally visually stimulating, and there are smaller details that underscore how shitty the infrastructure in South America is - the characters have to cannibalize several old, shitty trucks in order to make one that's even halfway functional, and the montage of them going through all these metal husks to find parts and assemble them is really engaging without veering into outright comedy.
I was also unsure how this film would handle the potential for character deaths, since the point of the French film was to be an existentialist exercise in misery and suffering, but obviously that doesn't play well to a Hollywood audience. I will just say that I was genuinely surprised in several places, and not in the hamfisted way you'd expect:
>character says "oh, how I wish I could see my family again"
>character constantly mentions "oh man, if only my family could see me now"
>character ACTUALLY LIVES, ZOMG!!!!!
And so on. There's none of that in Sorcerer.
I want to mention the editing more, because the film is incredibly stark: there is very little camera movement except for the occasional pan/tracking shot, or a POV shakycam shot from inside the truck seat or under its wheels. It almost feels like the film doesn't care about the viewer, but it's not actively hard to watch. I think the best way I can describe it is that every shot is meant to have the emotion of standing on a road in the middle of a humid jungle: it's not there to be your friend, but it doesn't care enough about you to hate you, either. It's just what it is, and what it is is probably going to kill you. There were several scenes in this movie that genuinely had me glued to my seat with my heart in my throat, which is very rare for me.
Although the film has its rough spots, I strongly recommend it for anyone who likes good suspense cinema. It's especially interesting as a companion film to The Wages of Fear, but it's not a direct remake because the characters and overall style are completely different. I only heard about this film because it was a footnote in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, so I'm trying to get the word out and make as many people aware of it as possible.
>sometimes I wanted it to just shut up for a bit and actually be serious but it always had to shoehorn a joke in somewhere
It's a real shame because all the elements for a fun, genuine adventure with a bit of gravity are there, but the writers have all been sworn to practice the doctrines of Joss Whedon, so there's never allowed to be any genuine emotion from any character. Odin's death is so disconnected from the rest of the film it's laughable, and yet it's supposed to be the rising event for Thor and Loki's character arcs.
It would have been so much more fun if the film had just let Thor have a few Serious Moments™ and reflect on what Odin's death means for him, since he's basically a prince but way too much of a meathead to live up to the role of being a king.
>I like doing all the warrior stuff, and I do it for Asgard and for my family
<but now my father's dead and I have to be a king???
>oh wait, here's a villainess - I'll just fight her >:)
<oh shit she flung me to the far end of the universe
>hmm, maybe I shouldn't have charged in headfirst by myself . . .
<is this what it means to be a king???
But no. Have a nigger Valkyrie and a handful of useless, grating characters.
I really like this movie too. Didn't it live in some kind of production hell and never got released until like a decade ago?
No, it was released in 1977 as normal. The production had some trouble due to the logistics of shooting in a wild jungle, but the entire shooting schedule was apparently 10 months. It was remastered on Blu-Ray in 2014, but the reason you may think it had trouble in production is that it released a month after Star Wars, which naturally means it may as well have not existed.