Movie Critical Analysis.

[theropod_V_2.0]

Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back.

In the ground battle on the ice planet Hoth, Luke et al attack ATAT walkers in small fighter “planes”. After making a couple of attack runs Luke declares the ATAT’s armor is too thick for blasters. After some hero stuff they manage to knock over one of the ATAT’s. The ATAT’s is then strafed and blows up. So, apparently if an ATAT is off its feet the armor somehow becomes thinner.

RS

[arugula2]

Psychosomatic response... that somehow endears them to me.

[arugula2]

[quote="Animavore";p="2750042"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOd6ZYZE5uA[/quote]
A response to her critique, cloistered for brevity:

PRIME_BBCODE_SPOILER_SHOW PRIME_BBCODE_SPOILER:

Her main point is that Snyder's superman is missing the empathetic quality that would allow the audience to fully relate to him; and consequently he's also portrayed as a mechanical god, superior to us in the ways that (in her view of what's missing) don't "really" matter (ie, brawn, but no heart).

Undermining the main point is fairly easy: Snyder's superman is a villain (mostly). But beyond that: the idea of a superman whose opinion of us is gradually eroded by the ungrateful burden we represent, is... simply interesting. It's also rare. And that makes it even more interesting, imo.

To exemplify the other point – which is that (presumably as a result of de-soul-ing him) this depiction of the superman comes across as gaudy, idolatrous, as if emphasizing his godliness beyond the more human (read: empathetic) Reeves-era version - she inserts documentary clips of Neil deGrasse et al describing superman as something which appears in our lives to alert us to the fact that we are not special, and that there's something superior/above us out there.

I weigh these points in my mind. What is the more likely "god"? The one that patiently, almost omnisciently, persists in teaching us to be kind to kitties, despite all the shit he's seen our species be capable of, with no end in sight? Or the one whose exposure to our callousness has ground him down to the point of... what... a few dead baddies and some extra-crumbled buildings? (Oh boy, wouldn't we be lucky if that was all?) Which of these seems more "above us" and which of these seems more "on our level"? It's not that complicated. (This is also why, for example, the camera tends to ignore the humans in those shots... the camera is taking on his pov, not ours, which is the point.)

If she does believe that the infinitely-patient, always empathetic version is the less fantastical, I have some magic-realist literature she might like to add to her reference library:

[arugula2]

Contains an interesting summary of the DC Universe movie situation, with some confirmed and disconfirmed speculation about what's in the works. (Skip to 54:42, or click here if you're lazy.)

[LucidFlight]

[quote="arugula2";p="2750517"]Psychosomatic response... that somehow endears them to me. [/quote]

I think a lot of people disregard the feelings of the AT-AT in these situations.

[Matt_B]

[quote="LucidFlight";p="2750752"][quote="arugula2";p="2750517"]Psychosomatic response... that somehow endears them to me. [/quote]

I think a lot of people disregard the feelings of the AT-AT in these situations.[/quote]

The only effective armour in Star Wars is plot armour and even vehicles can lose theirs when the story requires it.

[Animavore]

[Matt_B]

I love a good Lindsay Ellis video. They're almost always more fun to watch than the film in question.

I've only ever seen Titanic once, but that was on a long haul flight back in the days before you got a choice of films and prior to the release of the GameBoy Color. Suffice it to say that I travel much more prepared to make my own entertainment these days.

I can get that it is technically brilliant, and the doomed romantic love story resonates with a huge audience, but the subject matter is just so thoroughly uninteresting to me that I simply don't care.

Oh, and Celine Dion.

[felltoearth]

[quote="Matt_B";p="2751730"]I love a good Lindsay Ellis video. They're almost always more fun to watch than the film in question.
[/quote]
+1

[LucidFlight]

I haven't seen the film for yeeeaaars, but I never considered it to be not good, actually. Hell, I'm even prepared to give Celine Dion a pass on this one.

[Hermit]

[quote="Animavore";p="2751645"][/quote]
Great movie. Top movie, even, if you're into soap opera.

[Fallible]

I am known to not mind Titanic.

[arugula2]

Idk how it overcomes its DiCaprio... but i haven’t seen it since that time at the second-run theater, lo many years ago.

[Fallible]

Leonardo ages like a fine nice wine, in my view. I had terrible trouble with him to begin with. The first time I remember not clenching my balloon knot during a performance of his was Gangs of New York. Since this time, my balloon knot has remained largely unclenched. I feel he has chosen parts well, and I enjoy his performances.

[arugula2]

I have many a few DiCaprio movies paused. Gangs is one of them, if I can find it. Revenant is the one that keeps coming to mind. I generally enjoyed Wolf of Wall Street, but methinks in spite of him. I can always see him thinking about each inflection, gesture, brow furrowing, etc. Never feels natural. However, I get the same unclenching trajectory as you, for the most part, and I suspect it’s because he gives less and less of a shit, which may be improving his acting.

[Mike_L]

I like Titanic for the phenomenal FX work.
Computer-generated water combined with model ship. Big model ship...



In this scene, the Carpathia is a matte painting by Christopher Evans. It was one of the last movie matte paintings done in the 'traditional' way (paint on glass), before the technique went completely digital...

carpathia_matte-painting.jpg

As for the music...
Give me James Horner's score without Dion's singing!

[arugula2]

Oh, I must say I enjoyed him enough in Django Unchained, but in the sense that he didn’t overwhelm a well-written, well-directed part with his inner DiCaprio-ness.

[Fallible]

[quote="arugula2";p="2751804"]I have many a few DiCaprio movies paused. Gangs is one of them, if I can find it. Revenant is the one that keeps coming to mind. I generally enjoyed Wolf of Wall Street, but methinks in spite of him. I can always see him thinking about each inflection, gesture, brow furrowing, etc. Never feels natural. However, I get the same unclenching trajectory as you, for the most part, and I suspect it’s because he gives less and less of a shit, which may be improving his acting.[/quote]

I think you may have hit on something there.

[theropod_V_2.0]

Channel surfing today allowed me to watch the last 5 minutes of “The Good, Bad and the Ugly”.

Lee Van Cleef was armed with an 1865 Remington “New Army” .44 cap and ball revolver, yet he was wearing a holster rig filled with cartridge ammunition. No, these were not rifle ammo for a saddle gun, but looked a lot like .45 long Colt ammo.

RS

[Animavore]

I don't know where to put Lindsay Ellis's new one.