FS #269: District 9 / Top 5 John Hughes Characters
Massacre Theatre is presented by In Review Online. Music this week is from John Hughes' "Pretty in Pink."
Filmspotting #269
:13-17:32 - Review: "District 9"
Music: Psychedelic Furs, "Pretty in Pink"
18:32-34:16 - Polls, Feedback (Food Movies)
Music: OMD, "If You Leave"
35:07-44:27 - New DVDs/Donations
44:28-49:33 - Mass. Theatre (Winner: M. Startsev)
49:34-1:09:50 - Top 5: John Hughes Characters
1:11:12-1:14:01 - Close/Next Show/Outtakes
NOTES
- The Bunuel doc Adam has seen is "Land Without Bread."
- How to pronounce Bunuel.
- Travis is dead right that one of "Humpday's" real pleasures is the depiction of Ben and Anna's marriage.
- Molly Ringwald wrote a great tribute to John Hughes in the NY Times.
- Follow more notes and corrections at http://twitter.com/filmspotting.
- Jeff Goldsmith's Creative Screenwriting Podcast can be accessed through iTunes here.
Labels: District 9, Neill Blomkamp, Top 5 John Hughes Characters
posted by Candace @ 7:28 AM
23 comments
23 Comments:
Eh. I had stopped listening when I had to restart iTunes over again. But after seeing D9 and looking for reviews, I thought I'd check you guys out again.
I'll go back to Spill.com They're honest and not as predictable as you guys. I was thinking you might like it because it's so original, did so much with its little budget, and was bleeding memorable. I thought 'Nah, even they aren't snobby enough to reject it just because it's an action film.' Surprise surprise.
It's unfortunate that we could spend 16 minutes talking about a movie (dishonestly? so we were lying the whole time?), sharing the several things we liked in addition to the things we disliked -- and never remotely coming close to "rejecting" it -- and yet that's exactly what you could reduce the discussion to. Would actually seem impossible to talk about a movie that long and reject it at the same time. Predictability isn't a bad thing... it's consistency. Nobody is telling you what you should want from a movie. We're simply expressing what we want from a movie.
Don't go writing that theory that Ferris is Cameron's imagination too quickly, its already been done
http://www.cinematical.com/2009/07/14/is-ferris-bueller-a-figment-of-camerons-imagination/
Just saw District 9 tonight and felt that my emotions were being totally manipulated, and I wholeheartedly accepted it. Being Comanche and Muskogee (Native American) I of course felt the clear connection the concentration camps, i.e. reservations, and felt the clear allegorical sting of this throughout the film. I said this is how humans treat each other, my Navajo girlfriend said this is how White men treat people. At any rate, I feel the filmmakers made this film with clear ideas to get across but at the same time had to entertain, this being film, so they had to adhere to the buddy cop genre. I support this combination of a film that uses a genre to advance substance. I feel you guys missed the mark here. The film had to have been a difficult sell and a challenge to create. How to create a story that not only entertains but has an actual message? This occurs of course but is not so easy to do.
This post has been removed by the author.
I enjoyed your review of District 9 a lot! For me, the film turned out to be the most satisfying blockbuster action movie this year because it was a great action movie with more!
For a brief moment about half-way through though, after going in not knowing what type of film to expect (refreshing in and of itself), I did feel like they did a bait and switch on me and what started off as biting commentary and satire gave way to a big action piece! So I can relate to your perspective of it being an effective social satire with less!
What I was surprised about though was your (especially Matty's) take on the protagonist. I thought he was one of the most interesting action anti-heroes on screen in years, and bought almost every action and decision he made. He was a bureaucrat thrown so far out of his comfort zone that his actions translate to this manic struggle to get back to what he is familiar with. And because he's in a situation that he's utterly unable to process, his sense of self-preservation kicks in above any sense of morality for much of the film!
You guys are losing me here.
I can see Mia's point. I sort of seemed like you talked about the good stuff at the beginning to get it out of the way and then you spent the rest of the review talking about the negatives. I shouldn't have been surprised that you didn't like it as much because of the action as much. When I think of summer popcorn movies, I think of Transformers and G.I. Joe. This wasn't a popcorn movie to me. I can talk for a long time about something that I don't like, and I'm not as verbose as you guys are.
The main problem I had was that there a lot of unanswered questions, but maybe those will be answered in sequels.
I think the confusion is that just because we're not raving about something doesn't mean we're ripping the movie or being explicitly negative. Sometimes you can just discuss critical issues, or points where the movie may have disappointed in relation to the rest of the film.
No, it's not a traditional (read: dumb) popcorn movie. But it is essentially a summer action movie/thriller, and the kind of popcorn movie I want... smart enough to keep me interested.
As I listen to your latest episode, I am shocked neither of you have seen Bunuel's 'Un Chien Andalou'- arguably his most famous work. Throughout my undergrad and graduate film studies career, I saw this short surrealist gem more times than I can count. And it never gets old. The opening scene, an extreme close up of an eye sliced open! The special effects of the 1920s still impress me. I've been listening to your podcast for a couple years now, and yours are two of the top analyses I look to when critiquing a film, but this is a serious gap in your education! Remedy soon!
Easy Molly they just got around to seeing Eternal Sunshine last month but thats what makes them so enduring.
Hey now, I saw Eternal Sunshine years ago!
As much as we cop to on the show, I'd put the number of movies I've seen up against any listener. No way I'd be at the top, but I think I'd be in a pretty high percentile. :)
Adam, I have no doubt you have seen a ton more films than I have. In fact, I'm trying desperately to fill in the gaps I've somehow let go unnoticed for so long. But I'm just saying, 'Un Chien Andalou' is a must for your Netflix queue.
For sure, Molly! I'm with you.
I've listened to your whole archive over the past couple years and I rarely, if ever, bother writing in to any podcast, site, or message board. Overall the show is professionally produced and formatted, and all the hosts/guests have been articulate and generally competent. But in filmspotting years those two years must equal 80 cause when in comes to the mainstream releases you guys sound more and more like a couple of pretentious old men, or sometimes in Matty's case just plain delusional. I get the not even bothering to watch trash like Transformers 2 or GI Blow - I'm sure you have families or other better things to do with your time (although it would've been fun hearing more eviscerations of those heaps). But when an interesting, original, modestly budgeted summer movie comes out ya poo poo it like a couple of yodels wearing depends. Sure you gave it props here or there, but after listening to your review I went in expecting a lot of overwrought action and came out of it wondering what movie you saw. This is a summer sci-fi action movie, right? And generally most filmmakers want their audience to be entertained, want to pay-off the premise of the film in the genre they're working within, right? Cause the audience would walk out in droves if Blomkamp conducted a full on socio-political-falsetto-choir singing to the masses about the travesties of the world with the sort of indulgence of a Bizzaro-World reverse Michael Bay. Instead Blompkamp will get his point across to a much broader audience by whispering in their ear in a way that just might spark a more serious conversation on the matter... And Matty, Matty, Matty, how could you say anything positive about Terminator Salvation and dis this in any small way? I'll check in on your marathons from time to time - that seems to be the only place where you guys still exhibit genuine excitement and enthusiasm for film - but as far as the mainstream new releases go I'm done with you guys... you're out of touch.
So wait, we can't even be remotely critical of a "good" movie now... we can't 'dis' anything? That's awfully limiting. Why does everything have to be so black and white? Why does expressing disappointment with the third act have to equal ripping the film? What does D9 have to do, in any way shape or form, with Terminator Salvation, and why are we dissecting how many positive things were said about either?
All I can say, Peter, is that whether or not people agree or disagree with our reactions is really irrelevant. We're not, nor will we ever, base the show on giving you advice about how to spend your money at the box office. I don't read other critics to have them corroborate my stance. The best reviews are usually the ones I disagree with, no matter how insanely wrong I think they might be.
To clarify... agreeing or disagreeing with the issues we raise is fantastic, and a huge part of our show in Feedback. What should be irrelevant is whether or not we loved the movie as much as you did. There are degrees of like and dislike that can't be quantified and really aren't worth hashing over.
The kiddy gloves were off, but I wasn't trying t rile you up Adam, nor am I an abashed fanboy of District 9. I liked it, but I don't remember gushing about it in the above comment; there were a few editing "leaps" that I didn't like used to patch a couple holes in some of the sequences. Nor do I expect to use a film reviewer’s opinion to decide wether or not I'll pay money to see something. A movie poster and trailer 90% of the time provide enough clues for that. I like film discussion shows, but that review was just the last in a trend I've noticed when listening to your podcast in regard to these "contemporary genre classics." I find that you guys often misrepresent them in your reviews (Bad boys 2 this is not), and criticize them for what wasn't on-screen or for being a different film then what you wanted it to be. Genre films play with the tropes of their respective genres. It's a sci-fi auctioner, so why wouldn't you expect to get sci-fi action in the third act. Maybe it was transparent for those too keen enough to observe, but the action arose from the story and character and wasn't absent minded spectacle and that's all anyone can expect from this type of film. If I want 2001: a Space odyssey, I'll watch 2001: a Space odyssey. D 9 does get a little screenwriting 101 in places, but I can't fault the limitations of 2 hour narratives, which are unfortunately reliant on plot contrivances. I don't think I've seen a genre film that can't be distilled down to a series of plot points, or for that matter ANY film that isn't blatantly abstract for the sake of being abstract. We're discussing modern mythic structure and as far as I know myths are myths because of repeated patterns, which is why they resonate. It is like you guys are criticizing a building for being architectural. Peace out dude.
Not riled up, Peter... just engaging in some pleasant back and forth. Perhaps I was reading some of Mia's comments into yours... and I certainly hope people don't actually think that we're equating District 9 -- taken as a whole -- to Bad Boys 2... but I do stand by our discussion. There is a solid chunk of District 9 that really is no different from a film like Bad Boys 2 from an action standpoint... bullets flying everywhere, things and people blowing up... and that type of action, as we've consistently said on the show, simply doesn't hold much interest for either of us.
Where I disagree with you is the part about it all just going hand in hand with being a sci-fi action movie. Blomkamp isn't restricted to some template, and action can certainly be handled in a less Michael Bay kind of way and still be thrilling. District 9 never could be 2001 and I'd never ask it to be. But I think us hoping the movie would stay as consistently smart and interesting in the third as it was in the first couple is perfectly reasonable. We just want the movie to be what the movie itself promises.
I also thought you guys came off slightly harsh and buttoned-down sounding. I actually wish there had been more dissent on your side, Adam, because you seemed to get the character of Wikus in a way that apparently eluded Matty. (Did he really complain that Wikus is unlikeable? Isn't that the point?) In fact, I wondered if you were embarrassed to say too many positive things about a sci-fi movie with lots of explosions.
More specifically, I thought you both seemed confused by the film’s fusing (you use the word “mash-up”) of documentary-style with more conventional action movie elements. Maybe in a pre-YouTube world I could understand this confusion, but I really thought the two styles were skillfully, if not seamlessly, woven together. So I guess what you took to be “the downfall of the movie,” I took to be your inability to meet the movie on its own terms, especially in its more action-oriented chapters. As you say, "We just want the movie to be what the movie itself promises"--and that’s exactly why I liked it. I thought it promised to be a hybrid of biting social commentary/satire and more conventional but brilliantly executed action. And that’s what I got.
I really think, especially in Matty's case, if D9 (had been released thirty years ago and) was part of your 70s sci-fi marathon, you guys would have cut it more slack and maybe allowed yourselves a bit more enthusiasm for what it achieves.
No need to rent Un Chien Andalou from Netflix the full version is all over the internet.
The notes say you have seen it?
Un Chien Andalou = Land Without Bread
Usually paired together, but Andalou and Bread aren't the same movie.
I liked D9 but think it wimped out on the message it was set up to present.
Post a Comment
<< Home