I saw Brazil when it first came out with my parents as a teenager. We then went out to dinner at a cafeteria and stared at our plates saying nothing.
The Spirit by Frank Miller because it completely screwed over Will Eisner. I hated that film on a deeply emotional level.
Thatâs more of a business decision, right? Artistically, there were many, many reasons to simply ignore that movieâs existence and not hold onto it.
âSome creepy old man cut it offâ, was, in some ways, the perfect comment on Stan Lee.
In other ways, every comic book movie is a little bit of an indie mockumentary about the comics industry, fandom, etcetera.
Somebody I knew from high school and I happened to walk into our neighborhood second-run theater for a screening of Jacobâs Ladder the year it came out. Weâd never heard of it. It was just what was playing that night.
We didnât know what the FUCK we were getting into
Thatâs like the 18yos who sat in front of me when Naked Lunch came out. âItâs like, about this writer, and he takes drugs?â one of them said while we waited for the film to start. They were giggling and horsing around. It was clear none of them had read the book â or if they even knew there was a book.
Afterwards they were very, very quiet.
The Killing Fields.
Phar Lap.
City Lights.
The Kid.
I have read that book. It was really eye opening, but at the same time I wish I hadnât read it.
Saying itâs about âtaking drugsâ is a gross oversimplification. Smoking pot once at a party in college is taking drugs. This is a rabbit hole few of any wish to go down.
This is probably my favorite movie of all time. Chaplin was a genius.
I read it when I was an undergrad, and had more of a tolerance built up for that sort of thing. Iâd have a harder time reading it now.
The parts I liked best were the notes about different kinds of bargain-basement recreational drugs (nutmeg! who knew?). The parts that haunted me were about âLittle Willyâ â canât imagine having a father going through what Burroughs did as he wrote that.
interesting trailer
Yep. Iâd read all sorts of crap because it was âtransgressiveâ. I was such a little edgelord back then. I think it says a lot that I was looking for something gritty and ârealâ because I didnât want to be sheltered anymore. Now that Iâm older and no stranger to shit piling up everywhere, I just want escapism and fun.
Unbreakable? X-Men 2? The Dark Knight? Iâm probably forgetting something.
Logan.
Logan was an excellent film. Easily the best of the X-Men franchise, if not the best superhero film of all time. Sir Pat Stew especially turned in a excellent performance (as he almost always does). Itâs a pretty stark meditation on aging and how that impacts, not just the individual who is aging, but those around them.
[ETA] @Daveb, Jinx!
All the superhero movies about regret and survivor guilt, basically?
Infinity War kinda breaks that criticism. Actually, a lot of the Marvel movie villains have had more to them than just wanting to âconquer and killâ. Thereâs been (spoiler alert) Lokiâs envy, Ultronâs desire to âprotectâ humanity, Obadiahâs desire to protect the bottom line, etc.
For that matter, weâve had comic book movies based around the villains having a plan to sell beach-front property and get rich (with the incidental deaths of millions, who they just didnât care about). Is that not enough human greed for this author?
My eyes were rolling plenty at that point so I didnât catch that element. Thor 3, specifically, had a villain who wanted to make Asgard great again, to ârule the cosmosâ and manifest that destiny. The other villain was a smarmy âI got here firstâ oligarch. What non-superhero blockbusters have been so honest about wealth, power, and villainy?
Man of Steelâs villain explicitly wanted to convert Earth to a copy of his home planet, which he views as a utopia. He has more than one scene where he argues with the good guys, claiming Kryptonian society was perfect.
So yes, this person knows that thereâs a thing called myth. Too bad he doesnât seem to have watched the movies that, themselves, also display some little (actually not so little) knowledge of myth.
Hereâs the thing about this criticâs experience of movies: the only movies heâs going to pay enough attention to (to catch whatâs under the surface) are those movies that use no conventions whatsoever⌠and might take him out of his blinkered inability to see whatâs clearly projected on the screen.
So when it comes to these movies, he just does not pay attention. So he cannot speak about this aspect of his job without immediately demonstrating how he is incapable of doing his job well and honestly.