Movie Critical Analysis.

[Matt_B]

[quote="theropod_V_2.0";p="2754326"]Well, a movie about gunfighters and their tools shouldn’t make such errors. Don’t get me wrong, it’s an awesome flick. Considering that there was an extended scene wherein Tuco makes his own Colt revolver from parts of several guns, and it shows how much attention to the smallest detail these gunfighters paid to their tools, the idea that one of his peers would be so equipped is ludicrous. In keeping with the Star Wars idea it would be like Luke wielding a Claymore instead of a light saber (which he’d sure need the help of the force to even swing).

RS[/quote]

Sure, but when they didn't even feel the need to try to get the actors lip movements in sync with their voices (as Leone eventually did in later films) there were also probably constraints in terms of time and money to deal with.

Also, you don't want to go far down the route of historical accuracy otherwise you're making films without professional gunslingers in them at all, let alone ones who can shoot through a noose at range. A succession of one-sided massacres by people with day jobs wouldn't make for great cinema though, so the Western became the largely fantasy genre that it is. Leone made them grittier than most of his contemporaries, but still wasn't exactly setting them in the real world.

So, I suspect they just gave him the ammo belts to appear intimidating. It certainly gives that impression to people who don't have an intimate understanding of firearms, and maybe that alone could be enough of a motivation for the character? Most of the people he comes in the film - Clint presumably excepted because he certainly isn't intimidated - aren't avid consumers of gun porn after all.

As for lightsabers, don't get me started. Regardless of weight issues, they're a ludicrous weapon in a setting where pretty much even the lowliest enemy is packing a highly effective armour piercing gun. There's no real scientific basis as to how they could function that isn't bordering on magic and, even to someone with my amateur knowledge of fencing, the fight choreography isn't very convincing. They're they way they are pretty much entirely because they make cool toys and allow for some impressive visual effects. Much like with Westerns, the films are best considered fantasy despite the technological trappings.

The TL;DR is that nobody should ever let reality get in the way of telling a good story.

[laklak]

You're fighting to be Emperor of the Galaxy and you're going to use swords? Give me a break. Dumbass challenges you with his light sabre you vaporize his head. It's a no brainer.

It's like when there's 10 bad guys, but they only attack the good guy one at a time. Don't expect that here. I'll be in your face while Mrs. Lak jumps on your back and the kids are going up your legs like rabid marmots. Never mind the fucking dogs.

[arugula2]

[quote="laklak";p="2754403"]Dumbass challenges you with his light sabre you vaporize his head. It's a no brainer.[/quote]

[arugula2]

[quote="laklak";p="2754403"]It's like when there's 10 bad guys, but they only attack the good guy one at a time.[/quote]
This is why I can never take Assassin's Creed games seriously. Also, pretty much 90% of all action movies.

[Hermit]

[quote="Matt_B";p="2754391"]...you don't want to go far down the route of historical accuracy otherwise you're making films without professional gunslingers in them at all, let alone ones who can shoot through a noose at range. A succession of one-sided massacres by people with day jobs wouldn't make for great cinema though, so the Western became the largely fantasy genre that it is. Leone made them grittier than most of his contemporaries, but still wasn't exactly setting them in the real world.[/quote]



Fantasy, or not, it's fun picking at mistakes made in movies, though - like laklak just did in the post right below yours.

[arugula2]

It's about Lady in the Water's failures as a consequence of Shyamalan's ego. Unfortunately, the only specific critiques it gives about the movie itself are: 1) Shyamalan's egoistic self-insertions, and 2) "Does calling Bryce Howard a 'madam narf' sound really stupid?"

Pretty thin on substance for a 16 minute video, but it does plug a book, The Man Who Heard Voices, by Michael Bamberger, which is supposedly the main source material. I'd like to take a look at the book, but I expect it's pretty thin on movie-specific critiques also. There's no reason otherwise for the video to not go into more specifics.

Either way, I'm pretty sure most people here would agree LitW was a failure - but not I. Receipts.

[Fallible]

Either way, I'm pretty sure most people here would agree LitW was a failure - but not I.

[Animavore]

One of the worst movies I've ever seen.

[arugula2]

One of the worst movies I've ever seen.

Sike - I remember.

[Svartalf]

What's the matter about cap and ball revolvers' issues? That movie takes place during the civil war, and the remington "1858" was notoriously used at that period.

[Hermit]

[quote="Svartalf";p="2755429"]What's the matter about cap and ball revolvers' issues? That movie takes place during the civil war, and the remington "1858" was notoriously used at that period.[/quote]
There is no issue with cap and ball revolvers. theropod_V_2.0 just pointed out that the ammunition in the cowboy's belt cannot be used with the cap and ball revolver in said cowboy's holster.

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but another issue with the ammunition in the gun belt is that the movie is set in 1862 and centrefire jacketed bullets were not invented until two decades later.

[Matt_B]

[quote="Animavore";p="2755271"]One of the worst movies I've ever seen.[/quote]

I'd have to say that Signs was the Shyamalan film that disappointed me the most though. He'd fully built up his reputation as a master of the dramatic twist by that point, but what did we get? An alien invasion that could be fended off by a few splashes of water and a baseball bat, followed up by a religious conversion. FFS. It didn't just make me re-evaluate the previous events of the film but my expectations of the director.

That said, I can totally get why it's still regarded on close to the same level as the earlier Unbreakable and The Sixth Sense, because people seeking validation of their beliefs - or maybe even just a happy ending - might regard it as having delivered the goods for them. Lady in the Water has more or less the same problem with its twist but plays to a much smaller audience who are going to receive it in a positive fashion.

[arugula2]

Not exactly SPOILERS, but some thematic hints.

In Signs, I think Shyamalan accidentally wrote a satire about the solipsism of personal faith. He's an inept philosopher, which can be gleaned in various places, like the opening monologue in The Happening, or the embarrassing part he wrote himself in Lady in the Water. If he'd had a co-writer for the more philosophical elements, a lot of the weaknesses in these movies might've been fixed. I'm not sure what it would take for Signs... If you make the danger more realistic, you're still left with the ridiculousness of thinking the universe intervenes to restore a man's mojo, but ignores earlier victims. Otoh, we don't really know if there were earlier victims - it's hinted, but not confirmed. A dog is butchered, but that's about it. You wouldn't gain or lose much by bolstering the sci-fi, because you'd still be left with lame moral philosophy.

In Lady in the Water, I think the internal logic is pretty coherent. It does hinge on Story's interpretation of the limits her people have placed on her. I don't know how one could portray that ambiguity/dilemma better (aside from performances, which I think were generally strong ). In fact, I like the ambiguity. It tells me that Story & her people are winging it. They're trying to navigate rules which aren't so much rules as habits inherited from an emotional/cultural encounter that's defined our two paths (theirs and ours) for countless generations. When you have that kind of falling out, it comes with deep-seated baggage, and if there's any scenario which would permit a sort of communication paralysis, it's exactly this one. We've forgotten our stories, and we have to make an effort to remember them or to replace them with worthy new ones - or we'll never reconcile with our past.

It was done better in The Neverending Story, which had an easier task (1 normie enters a fully defined fairy tale, vs an opaque fairy tale tries to subsume a world full of normies) - but I do admire the courage in this one. Also, again, great camera work, superb sound, etc. This, although it's not as re-watchable for me as Signs, is I think his most well-constructed movie overall. Not a popular opinion - but meh. And again, a co-writer might've bolstered the presentation of ideas.

Added: Unbreakable was fairly well constructed too, imo. A bit wordy in places, maybe. Might be second-most re-watchable for me, after Signs, which has a lot more character stuff going for it. I never fell for the gimmick in Sixth Sense, because Willis's performance felt off throughout. I'm sensitive to anomalous character interaction & setup - so in a way, I see dead people too. I certain dialogue moments in The Village, otherwise it's mostly unmet potential. William Hurt is great.

[Fallible]

How about The Visit?

[arugula2]

You know I still somehow haven’t seen that. Gotta check why... could be a lack of streaming options.

Added: No stream option for me... and my county library system doesn't have it... and the inter-library loan system is still down due to covid. Will have to wait I guess.

[Fallible]

Well that’s a bit crap, innit.

[arugula2]

I’ll have to do with the other 50 movies I have paused or bookmarked. Sigh...

[arugula2]

[Animavore]

[arugula2]

AngryJoe movie discussions are back. Nothing rehearsed, just fanbois. Spoiler section @ 23:45, but they throw some in @ 13:35-16:40 too. (For reference, 5/10 = "average".)

(Mulan)