Jump to content
Flying Purple Hippos Forums
Dan

Thread concerning John's obligations

Recommended Posts

Why would a 2 minute scene in the end invalidate an entire movie? I thought it was good and fun and is probably the movie that most closely resembles a video game ever, not in like a mortal kombat way, but actually the feeling of playing a hard video game.

 

I thought it was cool, and decided to ignore the last 2 minutes the moment I came out of the theater

I would watch Mortal Kombat movie a dozen times before rewatching this heap of crap again. "This movie was good because it resembles a video game" is kind of a ghastly reason to like a movie if you're over the age of 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ummmm you are the ones who tried to convince me that it was good and it wasn't~

 

something somthing pot, kettle, terrible tastes in film

I'm just saying that almost everyone on earth who watched this movie enjoyed it, we're trying to figure out why you didn't, and you won't convince us that we didn't enjoy it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think DF is telling you that you shouldn't like it or have enjoyed it, I think he's telling you that it was clearly a bad movie and the upshot is that if you liked it then you lack basic critical judgment. One may well come to this conclusion about almost everyone on earth who watched this movie and then shared their opinion on it.

 

Anyways I haven't seen it, but you're implying DF said something which he didn't say and which he therefore has no response for.

  • I'm with stupid 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But when the counter is that Elpea and Joost lack basic critical judgement, this should be an open and shut case. :mellow:

 

Also they're forced to argue that Mike's taste in movies is bad or uninformed, and clearly that's a big, jew-nosed mountain to scale.

  • I'm with stupid 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what ever happened to mike's movie reviews page ??

 

(was it a blog or was this from before blogs existed)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But when the counter is that Elpea and Joost lack basic critical judgement, this should be an open and shut case. :mellow:

I'm so convinced by your arguments, which are the following:

  • OTHER PEOPLE LIKE IT SO IT'S A GOOD MOVIE
  • IT IS LIKE A VIDEO GAME SO IT'S A GOOD MOVIE
  • TOM CRUISE TURNS FROM A CLUELESS IDIOT INTO SOMEONE WHO CAN WIELD GUNS SO IT'S A GOOD MOVIE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, this is a movie about an unlikeable ass who has to relive the same day over and over again. This creates an akward situation for the writers, since they can't do anything with any characters other than the main character - anything that happens to them, they've forgotten three scenes later. That's fine, if you can show that something interesting happens to the main character. Show some real development there.

 

For comparision: in Groundhog day, you get an introduction into the main character. You see that he has a total disdain for the ordinariness of the situation he's stuck in. He wants great things and he feels that he deserves great things. Being forced to relive a completely ordinary day and being in love with someone very different from him, he has to change, and he slowly comes to appreciate what happens on his day. We see how he at first abuses the power he's given, how he grows bored of that, how he starts to feel responsible. Fate forces him to take a lesson in living in the moment and accepting the ordinary, but the cycle continues until he finally overcomes his disdain and his self-regard.

 

Now let's take Edge of Tomorrow. Like Groundhog day, we're supposed not to like the character at first. But rather than to create at three-dimensional character with virtues and flaws, we just have to dislike him because he is a coward and a media face. It doesn't really help that every other character we're introduced to is unlikeable too (the general, the sergeant, the asshats in J squad), so really, what is this guy supposed to change into? Well, we get the solution. He gets to fight aliens over and over and over again until he is a cool, battle-hardened soldier. That's the character development in the film. Coward asshole becomes gun-toting asshole.

 

So really, tell yourself, which of these movies tells you anything at all about human nature? Which delves in the very least into any person's psyche and lets you see how a real human being can change? Come the fuck on.

 

If you want to compare the rest of the movie, it gets even sadder. Groundhog Day is a good comedy, and the premise is used to place him in many funny situations. In Edge of Tomorrow, the rest of the film consists of grenades flying at zerg, planes crashing due to zerg, and endless fucking droning about how the zerg reset time and how tom cruise resets time and about how the zerg queen must be killed because otherwise the zerg will zerg all over the world and the zerg will zerg zerg and zerg zerg.

 

See why I don't think this movie is good?

  • I'm with stupid 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now of course I like men's movies as much as the next guy and I'll gladly watch someone blow up aliens, but when your main character shows less character than fucking Rambo and none of the other people in the film can even do anything, something is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But when the counter is that Elpea and Joost lack basic critical judgement, this should be an open and shut case. :mellow:

 

Also they're forced to argue that Mike's taste in movies is bad or uninformed, and clearly that's a big, jew-nosed mountain to scale.

His post and critique were lazy and dismissive of DF's points without anything to back it up. Just because he called himself a film critic at some point doesn't make that blunder any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad part is, the central sci-fi premise ("What if humans had a "save point" in their life & could "re-play" from that point when they die?") is really cool and I'd like to see a movie about it.

 

When would you dare to press "save game" in your life? Would you save just before that date you're excited about until it's just perfect? (Kinda brutal that you would have to sepukku after every failed date though :awesome:). Would you not save after 20 so that you could live your youth over and over and over? What if you save and then discover that you saved after your mom's cancer became inoperable? Fuck.

 

If you can't choose your save points, it's stressful too. You die, you wake up on a certain day, apparently that's your save point. What the fuck now? What do you have to achieve? Do you have a blueprint for your life? Are you going to do the same thing but better? Or do you want a completely different life? Do you live it with someone else? Would it hurt to meet someone who was your friend or even your spouse in an other life but not have them know you? How does having knowledge of x years of life affect you?

 

I mean fuck I'd want to see a movie about that.

 

If you want to make it a men's movie, sure run with it. Soldier wakes up, has to fight a war over and over again. How does that change him? Does he feel responsible? Does he take it upon himself to change the world and win the battle or just to be a good soldier? What if he doesn't manage to change the battle? What the fuck would that say? Also, if he meets a hot blonde who's gone through the same thing, how the shit do you get close with her without becoming as creepy as tom fucking cruise? :awesome:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess "I don't give a fuck about anyone other than me and my media job" -> "Sacrifice myself hundreds (thousands?) of times to save the world" doesn't count as character development

  • I'm with stupid 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, sacrifice isn't sacrifice when there's no consequences. Second of all, he's pulled into it against his will and is basically only driven by getting the fuck out. The woman decides he has to save the world and he runs with it for no apparent reason.

 

It is the woman, who in the movie didn't even have enough personality for me to remember her name, who realised she had to use what was given to her to save humanity, it was she who made the decision that this is a responsibility, a godlike power in battle that must be fully used to win the war. Unfortunately the film isn't about her in Verdun, being confused about what's happening to her, figuring it out with a weird scientist, and deciding that she has a reponsibility to mankind. It's about tom cruise shooting zerg better and better.

 

But most importantly, you learn NOTHING about why he changes, about what motivates him, about what the respawning does to him, you see NOTHING about what should change his psyche from a self-centered media boy into a self-sacrificing hero. The movie doesn't explore the mind of its main character in the least even when given powerful as fuck sci-fi tools to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then there's this fucking american assumption that if you don't think soldiering is heroic & cool & for fucking everyone WHEN DUTY FUCKING CALLS, you're a coward and a self-centered asshat and you should be disliked. That's basically all they're banking on for you to dislike his character in the beginning, and they really really rub it in.

 

I mean, they could contrast it with someone reminding him of his duty, or of an earlier commitment, but nope, the fucking general is worried about his media image and his own career as much as everyone else. But I guess in a world of assholes, the respawning asshole is king?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess "I don't give a fuck about anyone other than me and my media job" -> "Sacrifice myself hundreds (thousands?) of times to save the world" doesn't count as character development

 

I think this is exactly the point at which I learnt this is just another shitty American Heroe narrative which reduces the entire spectrum of human emotion and existential struggles into "CAN I BE MAN ENOUGH TO MAN UP AND DO THE RIGHT THING BY WHICH I MEAN SHOOT THE RIGHT DUDE IN THE FACE".

  • I'm with stupid 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the film because it was retarded but it didn't try to claim it isn't retarded so I watched it as a comedy and it was okay with it and now we're bros

 

Also the part where it was driven by a fun gimmick rather than action sequences made me interested right up until Tom Cruise got his transfusion so that's cool too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is exactly the point at which I learnt this is just another shitty American Heroe narrative which reduces the entire spectrum of human emotion and existential struggles into "CAN I BE MAN ENOUGH TO MAN UP AND DO THE RIGHT THING BY WHICH I MEAN SHOOT THE RIGHT DUDE IN THE FACE".

CONGRATULATIONS YOU HAVE GRASPED ALL THERE IS TO GRASP IN THIS FILM AND CAN NOW SAFELY SKIP IT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...