|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jan 9, 2018 9:43:32 GMT
The state of the box office does not mean that the objective of a media company isn't to (profitably) give consumers what they want. It just means that the last season they were less successful in that aim. But I am sure you can see that. Now you just sound defensive. I am not surprised. Not defensive at all. When I have Lovecraft, Capote, and Brando covering my back, why would I be? Hollywood announced the top paid actress in Hollywood is an Israeli. There's no hiding it. And back to the first point, it is clear that Hollywood sees movies as a vehicle for propaganda first and foremost--thus they phase out the white characters. They have Black panther coming which will die in China -even though they have said Asia is their main audience now. If you cannot see the inconsistency in their reporting I am afraid you are beyond help with it. Next you will be telling me the Kardashians were on tv because people asked for them. An example of the dishonesty by these "business driven" companies. Disney cast a mixed race woman for a character meant to be blonde and blue-eyed, and explained it by saying the mixed-race actress gave the best audition. How did someone who was not fitting the profile of the character get an audition if they did not intend to cast someone other than white? If Hollywood is driven by profit as you say then they will respond to the recent Star Wars negativity among audiences by changing direction. I will bet they will not. Even you should agree that if they care about markets they would not hire a director who said Annie Hall is his favorite movie to direction a science fiction action film. Clearly they were not worried about risks (as they claim when people ask why movies are getting dumber).. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 9, 2018 10:08:10 GMT
When I have Lovecraft, Capote, and Brando covering my back, why would I be? Because you are espousing distasteful anti-Semitic opinions - ones moreover not even relevant to the original discussion which, I think, reveals your agenda more than that of Hollywood's. This seems to exercise you more than it ever would I. I wonder why? As said before, you have your opinions - and you're welcome to them. You certainly seem preoccupied with supposed controversies over race, whether Jewish or otherwise. And imply world-wide (Jewish?) conspiracies, hoary and discredited stuff indeed. But given that you have approvingly quoted the reprehensible views of Lovecraft ("Taste is insidiously moulded along non-Aryan lines ... which does not represent us" or Capote's "Jewish Mafia" et al), this is not a surprise. There is certainly ongoing concern about the representation of BAMEs, and women in Hollywood - but not in the direction you suggest. As I understand it, the last Star Wars film has won praise from critics and viewers (I have read some glowing reviews here in the UK for instance). Some people of course will always find things to fault. And the supposed dumbing down of recent Hollywood suggests a concern to reduce risk by relentlessly appealing to the largest cinema-going constituency, adolescents and teenagers, rather than anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jan 9, 2018 10:31:36 GMT
There is certainly ongoing concern about the representation of BAMEs, and women in Hollywood - but not in the direction you suggest.As I understand it, the last Star Wars film has won praise from critics and viewers (I have read some glowing reviews here in the UK for instance). Some people of course will always find things to fault. And the supposed dumbing down of recent Hollywood suggests a concern to reduce risk by relentlessly appealing to the largest cinema-going constituency, adolescents and teenagers, rather than anything else. Well as Marlon Brando said, he was mad at some of the Jews running Hollywood for not being sensitive enough to people's suffering-that they showed every kind of stereotype except the Jewish merchant. Interesting thing is that this was less of a problem with the non Jewish studios. RKO, Republic Pictures, but anyway at least we now agree that Hollywood does not represent domestic US audiences. I always try this double standard test with people who get upset about the race discussion. If Norwegians went to Japan and took over the media and declared that Burmese were the new Japanese-and started putting more Burmese people (and perhaps also Norwegians and Poles) on Japanese media--and said Japanese media needs to be multicultural--would you consider that cultural imperialism or cultural genocide? Do you believe Japanese people-the ethnic population, have a right to control their media, yes or no? If you say yes, then you must agree the same holds true for the native population of US or England etc. And then you would be agreeing with Lovecraft and Capote. Or perhaps you believe in one size fits all media and art and Japan's culture should be erased too? We'll find out. And your information about Hollywood catering to the youth market is a little out of date. Asia is the new market-even though Star Wars bombed there and they aren't panicking. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 9, 2018 10:54:22 GMT
Well as Marlon Brando said, he was mad at some of the Jews running Hollywood for not being sensitive enough to people's suffering-that they showed every kind of stereotype except the Jewish merchant. Interesting thing is that this was less of a problem with the non Jewish studios. This is because Jewish people were often, like other sexual and ethnic minorities, often stereotyped, subservient or absent from the screen during earlier Hollywood. (which meant a growth of such things as independent, poverty row Yiddish or black cinema). So a broader criticism could, yes, be brought with justification here against Hollywood generally. If there is a more damaging specific (and specifically relevant) criticism to be levelled against Jewish studio chiefs of the time in particular, then it is the appeasement of the Nazi government, until quite late, with a lack of production critical of the regime. This was because of the profit motive - European markets being highly valued - and some powerful German lobbying in the USA. This is not something I have agree with, and so I do not know why you would suggest this. A lot of the mass media only succeeds as product when it reflects back to an audience what it wants to see or more, see confirmed. Of course it may well be the case that you feel a modern, liberal multi-cultural Hollywood does not represent you - but that is something only you can say. Your conspiracy theories are all yours and you are welcome to them. Who, exactly, has "taken over the media" (Hollywood), presumably moulding taste along the non-Aryan lines quoted by you so approvingly from Lovecraft? I think I know what you are suggesting, the "Jewish Mafia" - and I have to say it is all anti-Semitic, discredited, and unpleasant. Some people are Jewish. Get over it. A false equivalence is a logical fallacy. The only things that should fit all media and art are such things as artistic honesty, equal treatment, and freedom from racism and bigotry. Hollywood's principal audience is the youth market. Hence the glut of superhero movies. QED. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jan 9, 2018 15:24:04 GMT
This is because Jewish people were often, like other sexual and ethnic minorities, often stereotyped, subservient or absent from the screen during earlier Hollywood. (which meant a growth of such things as independent, poverty row Yiddish or black cinema). You arent even addressing the point Brando made-which is that they showed hurtful depictions of blacks, Indians, Irish, you name it. They weren't against showing them in a negative light. By contrast Cooper's King Kong and the sequel were not using the same depictions-neither did Republic or Disney. You can keep your opinions-I will keep to mind since I back them up. And as expected you ignored my test question. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 10, 2018 9:57:16 GMT
You arent even addressing the point Brando made-which is that they showed hurtful depictions of blacks, Indians, Irish, you name it. They weren't against showing them in a negative light. By contrast Cooper's King Kong and the sequel were not using the same depictions-neither did Republic or Disney. You can keep your opinions-I will keep to mind since I back them up. And as expected you ignored my test question. You have a distasteful anti-Semitic agenda and so I will leave you to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jan 10, 2018 10:05:23 GMT
You have a distasteful anti-Semitic agenda and so I will leave you to it. I believe people of any country should have a right to make culture that reflects their heritage. It is only anti-semitic when someone points out who controls western media and the hateful (indeed genocidal) message it has about whites. Anyone who appreciates art history and literature would be offended (as Lovecraft and Capote were among others). That's why the Japanese question caused you problems--one cannot say whites must be diverse but Japanese don't have to. Double standards. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 10, 2018 10:24:21 GMT
You have a distasteful anti-Semitic agenda and so I will leave you to it. I believe people of any country should have a right to make culture that reflects their heritage. It is only anti-semitic when someone points out who controls western media and the hateful (indeed genocidal) message it has about whites. Anyone who appreciates art history and literature would be offended (as Lovecraft and Capote were among others). That's why the Japanese question caused you problems--one cannot say whites must be diverse but Japanese don't have to. Double standards. As already mentioned your question is a false equivalence since (as opposed to your Norwegians in Japan) Jewish people are part of the UK and the Americas, having been assimilated over generations, and have moreover greatly enriched the culture, economy and sciences. Neither do they, as you suggest via Lovecraft, force 'non-Aryan' culture onto a reluctant populace as part of a plot to subvert values. Neither, too is multi-culturalism a conspiracy as you apparently think but a movement for inclusion and a diverse society. Nor is anyone in the west 'denied the right to control their media', as in your fictional scenario and which you claim is the case; most companies are run for the benefit shareholders not dictators, while the growth of the internet has led to an increasingly fragmented and democratized media in the west. Finally, the 'native' population of the UK of which you speak is actually made up of various peoples - and has been ever since the Norman Conquest and before, unless you are looking at the Picts, Celts and Saxons tribes - and even they had to originally walk across a land bridge from Europe to get here. I hope that helps.
Bluntly, the notion that a 'Jewish Mafia', or however you dress up the tropes of racism. control western media and spreads 'anti-white genocidal messages' presents a problem which does not exist outside of the obsessions of the same old supremacists and haters. If there is a problem, unfortunately, it is with you. Over and out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jan 10, 2018 10:40:02 GMT
Neither do they, as you suggest via Lovecraft, force 'non-Aryan' culture onto a reluctant populace as part of a plot to subvert values.
Doc Savage the Man of Bronze 1975. George Pal's final film was sabotaged with bad comedy and a slashed budget because the idea of a good blonde superman offended the studio folk at WB. They said audiences couldnt take a pulp story seriously. And yet, only 2 years earlier, WB financed Enter the Dragon with a Chinese lead--and lots of pulp influences, and put a $1 million towards US marketing. I could spend all night listing examples. In Predators, Jewish actor Adrian Brody is shown beating up a predator despite being scrawny-while Schwarzenegger, much more physically imposing, could not even scratch one. Jewish actor Shia Labouef defeats an alien robot single-handedly in Transformers. By contrast, no Aryan actor is shown with that kind of positive super powers unassisted. And the last example that might fit--John Carter, was deliberately marketed badly so as to kill it because Burroughs wrote before jewish publishing control and represented-as Lovecraft said, an aryan kind of stoytelling. Just the facts ma'am. |
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Jan 13, 2018 11:08:37 GMT
Extreme Prejudice (1987)
It had been on my watchlist for years now and I finally got around to see this action-western film.
When a film opens up with "A Mario Kassar & Andrew G. Vajna Production" then followed by Walter Hill (director), John Millius (writer or one of them) and then an incredible list of badasses such as: Nick Nolte, Powers Boothe, Michael Ironside, Rip Torn, Clancy Brown and William Forsythe just to name a few.
Then one also has the stunning Maria Chonchita Alonso in there also, and my expectations where probably too much, anyway I enjoyed the action, which was great and I am glad I found an uncut very good DVD copy, not the butchered one.
I really, really wanted to like this one and I wanted it to be a new favorite of mine, but somewhere in, the story and characters just did not do it for me.
I think most of the actors did good but there was little of the "classic" stuff that which might have raised it amongst the great action films of the 80s.
Nick Nolte plays a mean son-of-a-bitch but is not all that likeable, in fact I wanted to see more of the Michael Ironside crew because that was what kept me on my toes, the bank robbery and set up and then later on some nasty surprises within the group that is led by a ruthless Ironside.
And here is another "problem", I felt Michael did such a good job that it kind of put Powers Boothe villain part in the background, he was ok but not very memorable and the whole build-up to the big showdown between Nolte and Boothe was rather disappointing, it just felt so random.
Again, the action was great, the actors did mostly good but the story and characters (specially Chonchita Alonso who did not get enough screentime and while I enjoyed the scenes she had, it was not very impressive and I never bought the "dramatic" love-relationship triangle between her and the two main leads).
The music was ok, not very memorable or catchy, but I guess it fitted well in with this kind of film.
I end up with a kind but somewhat "disappointing" final rating, as I probably went in with far too big expectations and this one (in my opinion) is far away of the best stuff that Walter Hill made, but is still a watchable action film but not one that I will probably see again anytime soon.
7/10
|
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Jan 13, 2018 11:42:18 GMT
I gotta see Double Dragon, or at least that is my first reaction after having just watched that ridiculous trailer, and from the 2 minutes of footage, it actually looks like a lot more fun than what you got with Street Fighter. Never heard of the video game Double Dragon, but maybe that is a good thing.  It doesn't really take all that much from the video game. other than the costumes the two heroes wear, which only occurs in the film's dying stages. There's really not much story to it, so I guess it's no surprise they deviant from the spirit of the game. It usually gets rated the worse of these 90s video game adaptations... but for me that easily goes to "Super Mario Bros". Have you heard of "Streets of Rage"? "Double Dragon" is a similar video game in that style. |
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Jan 13, 2018 11:48:09 GMT
Different strokes, I guess. But I really love Hill's "Extreme Prejudice". That cast, the build up and Hill channelling Peckinpah. Everything about it just clicks for me.  |
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Jan 13, 2018 12:21:36 GMT
Streets of Rage, I think I played a few of them back in the day. Pretty fun as I remember.
I am usally very nostalgic when it comes to these martial arts/beat em' up games and movies made during the early 90s, as they just had that tone/atmosphere to them which often could "cover up" the lack of a story or any "depth" of the main characters. It was dumb and silly fun but I loved it.
|
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Jan 13, 2018 12:35:08 GMT
Different strokes, I guess. But I really love Hill's "Extreme Prejudice". That cast, the build up and Hill channelling Peckinpah. Everything about it just clicks for me. I think it was a better film than Streets of Fire (1984) and Read Heat (1988) but it kind of ends up like Southern Comfort (1981) (not a bad that one either but I just went in with to big of a expections) and maybe I might watch them again later on and it all falls into place, but as of now they just did not have that certain "re-watchability" such as Streets of Fire and Red Heat have, well, for me that is. But again they are far more cheesy and fastpaced than Southern and Extreme which are more gritty and raw. Taking a a quick look upon the work Hill did during the 70s and 80s, he has to be one of the manliest guys in the movie business, and while I really enjoyed Trespass (1992) films such as Another 48 Hours (1990) and Last Man Standing (1996) never did it for me, they somehow felt not up there with the old classic Walter Hill stuff, which is a shame because there is a lot talent involved with those two. Another 48 Hours was a big letdown for me, I love the first one while the second one was quite the mess, but later on I have read several times over that it was cut to pieces and that one important scene after another was taken out, which might have something to do with how poorly it was compared to 48 Hours. |
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Jan 14, 2018 7:37:09 GMT
"Extreme Prejudice" & "Southern Comfort" would make my top 3 favourite Walter Hill films. He would easily be one of my favourite filmmakers. Rewatched "Streets of Fire" a month or two back, and enjoyed it a little more than the first time I saw it. Forgot how stylish it looked - rain soaked atmospherics and rockabilly comic noir shades. Basic storyline, but it was fun and Dafoe stood out whenever on screen.
His 70s work; "The Driver", "Hard Times" and "The Warriors" is nothing short than great. I like "48 Hours", but it's not up their with my favourites. "Johnny Handsome" is probably his most under appreciated. "The Long Riders" is another impressive effort especially with that cast.
|
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Jan 14, 2018 13:56:10 GMT
Mechanic: Resurrection (2016)
Love the original one with Charles Bronson, and never bothered to see the "remake" that was released a couple of years ago, however I somehow ended up watching this one last night and, well, it was pretty much how I thought it would end up.
There is a lot of action going on, no question about that. From the very start Jason Statham takes out an small army with absolute no problem, in fact he almost looks bored out of his mind doing so, like the guy was just taking the shit ouf of em' in his sleep or something.
Also to be noted, I highly doubt one have to see the one from 2011 to "get" the "deep" character that is the 2016 version of hitman Arthur Bishop.
Ayway, it does not take that long before our hero have his hands full with the lovely Jessica Alba, who almost falls from the skies right into his arms after Bishop comes to her rescue from some abusive asshole, and it only takes a couple of minutes and they act like they have known each other for their entire lives, while sadly the far more talented Michelle Yeoh are pretty much is kept in the background, showing up here and there throughout the film but have very little to work with.
The postive things about this film is that it is enjoyable, dumb and silly action, it is what it is and nothing more or less. The locations and scenery are most of the times stunning and I gotta give Statham some credit, he does his job very well and is not a bad action actor, but the film pretty much sums up a lot of what I dislike about modern action and movies in general:
- The plot is basically paperthin, just as with the main characters. There are no time for a build up, and when it tries to do that the cheap and crappy editing seems more like somebody just pushed the forward button to speed things up and this forward button seems to be used rather frequently in this film, specially during the fight sequences, which is almost as annoying and lame as the horror that is the shaky cam.
- The main hero is far too dominating in every fight, I mean Statham takes out an entire army within a few seconds, where guys like Sly, Clint, Bronson and Arnie in their prime often had trouble now and then, even in ridiculous over-the-top epics like Commando or in many of the Rambo sequels, the hero would break a sweat and fight for his life, while in Mechanic Resurrection you never once feel that the hero is in any dangerous or life threating situation, even though of course they try to make it look like it, but it fails 10 out of 10 times over. And in the end this film along with so many other modern action movies look and feel more like a random video game than an actual action film, which is rather sad. I can re-watch almost every kill in Death Wish 3 or Commando and laugh at every new thing I end up discovering or re-discovering. The bad guys that got killed (a lot of) often were hilarious or very memorable, even if they had just 3-5 second on screen, it could be laughable scream, or the way they fell backward or forwards, but in many of todays action films they are just these faceless "robots" that have absolute none of that "classic" piss ant soldier style to them, they are just there and the next moment they are gone.
- And now onto the real big problem, not just in this film but again, with far too many action films of the last few years. The main, big bad villain is a complete joke. Talk about whimpy looking "baddie". We see Statham destroy 20-30 soldiers with absolute ease, then this sleazy scumbag who looks like some random business man thinks he can just put a knife to Alba's throat and talk some shit, that is gonna make him a fearsome foe? And where the hell is the classic henchmen? But I guess the closest we came to that was that hot chick in the beginning.
Ayway, I guess it sounds like I hate the film, which I did not. It was 90 minutes of silly action and a very forgettable but somehow entertaing plot, see once, then never again type of movie. Tommy Lee Jones arrives later on, and I kind of wished he would have not just more screentime but that he was the main villain, of course it would probably not save the film from mediocrity but it would help it when it comes to the entertainment section.
Take away Alba and Lee Jones and this is not a very good film, Statham does lots of great and impressive fight and action scenes/stunts but he just do not have the "personality" to lead a film alone and I have still not seen an action film of his that I have rated (with him the main lead) a rating higher than 5/10, but then again I have not seen that many, nor do I think I will either.
This was my little "rant" but again I did not hate the film and in fact as saturday entertainment, it was ok and I end up with a very generous final rating much because of Alba and Lee Jones who should have gotten far more to work with along with Michelle Yeoh:
5,5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Jan 14, 2018 14:09:30 GMT
"Extreme Prejudice" & "Southern Comfort" would make my top 3 favourite Walter Hill films. He would easily be one of my favourite filmmakers. Rewatched "Streets of Fire" a month or two back, and enjoyed it a little more than the first time I saw it. Forgot how stylish it looked - rain soaked atmospherics and rockabilly comic noir shades. Basic storyline, but it was fun and Dafoe stood out whenever on screen. His 70s work; "The Driver", "Hard Times" and "The Warriors" is nothing short than great. I like "48 Hours", but it's not up their with my favourites. "Johnny Handsome" is probably his most under appreciated. "The Long Riders" is another impressive effort especially with that cast. Yeah, Streets of Fire sure is a lot of fun, you got a stunning Diane Lane, and bad ass Michael Paré (why the heck did this guy not became a bigger star?) a creepy and cool as ever looking Willem Dafoe, a funny sidekick duo consisting of Amy Madigan and Rick Moranis then added on with lots of great 80s atomoshere with smoke, rain, neon lights and a great soundtrack, I just might have to re-watch this soon as it is too longe since the last time. Hard Times (1975) and The Warriors (1979) are surely among the coolest movies ever made, just perfect entertainment and every one involved did their party so damn good, I am just glad that there still have not been remade, while I guess if one mix The Driver (1978) with Thief (1981), one gets Drive (2011), but that one is a pretty damn solid made "remake" of those mentioned. I have never seen The Long Riders (1980) but after reading upon the film and taking a closer look of the incredible cast, I must do something about also, so thanks for brining that one up. |
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Jan 16, 2018 8:02:47 GMT
"Extreme Prejudice" & "Southern Comfort" would make my top 3 favourite Walter Hill films. He would easily be one of my favourite filmmakers. Rewatched "Streets of Fire" a month or two back, and enjoyed it a little more than the first time I saw it. Forgot how stylish it looked - rain soaked atmospherics and rockabilly comic noir shades. Basic storyline, but it was fun and Dafoe stood out whenever on screen. His 70s work; "The Driver", "Hard Times" and "The Warriors" is nothing short than great. I like "48 Hours", but it's not up their with my favourites. "Johnny Handsome" is probably his most under appreciated. "The Long Riders" is another impressive effort especially with that cast. and The Warriors (1979) are surely among the coolest movies ever made, just perfect entertainment and every one involved did their party so damn good, I am just glad that there still have not been remade, while I guess if one mix The Driver (1978) with Thief (1981), one gets Drive (2011), but that one is a pretty damn solid made "remake" of those mentioned. I have never seen The Long Riders (1980) but after reading upon the film and taking a closer look of the incredible cast, I must do something about also, so thanks for brining that one up. Yeah, "Drive" is actually quite good. It surprised me while watching it for the first time how similar it was to "The Driver". Especially the cracking intro. The clever stroke of having real-life brothers playing the outlaws alone makes "The Long Riders" worth-a-look. I don't know what you'll think of it as a whole, as its tailored more so towards that gritty, lean and raw Hill mindset. |
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Jan 16, 2018 15:03:52 GMT
Noticed all the brotherly names in the cast, pretty damn cool also with the Keach's, the Carradine's, the Quaid's and the Guest's. I almost expected to see a couple of the Baldwin's or even the Stallone's in there as well. Not a big fan of Ryan Gosling but still Drive was a very good film, of course the music, atmosphere and solid cast which backed him up rather well also helped out much, but as a fan of the films it seemed to be heavily influenced by, it was quite the surprise. |
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Jan 20, 2018 13:50:48 GMT
Security (2017)
Finally got around to see this one. I have been meaning to since, well for far too long now and I gotta say it was much better than I first expected and for me, along with Arnie's Aftermath (not an action film though) they are likely gonna ends up as the two most pleasantly surprises from last year.
Antonio Banderas delivers a very good job here, as an likeable but worn down ex-military veteran who are in desperate need of a job, whatever it is, he'll take it.
This end up leading him towards a big chopping mall, out in the middle out "nowhere", surrounded with clowns and who suddenly find themselves in a world of hell, when a desperate young girl appears on their doorstep. And things do not get any better when Ben Kingsley and his crew decides to show up.
The film takes it time to build things up, kind of soak up the atmosphere which I like about action films, and not just another go straight to the action within a few seconds (see Mechanic: Resurrection) and continue on with the same stuff for the next 85-90 minutes.
Security is far away of breaking new grounds, it is pretty much a nicely made, enjoyable Die Hard set in a very cool looking chopping mall, that which has a certain 80s vibe or look to it, which of course makes it even better.
The action was very well done, the fight scenes and so on, no bullshit fast-forward editing to be seen, but again more "gritty" and brutal where you actually remembers some of the bad guys and smaller henchmen. Sadly, I felt the one who came on as the most intimidating of the bunch was taken out too soon, the guy had this psycho look about him and would love to see a bigger and longer fight between him and Antonio.
Ben Kingsley do not really have all that much to do in this one, beside looking like the bad guy, and he does a good job at it as well, still I wished he would maybe get a bit more to do beside talk into a walkie talkie and look grumpy for most of his scenes, but again this very small complaints and did not take away any of the entertainment value.
All in all, I really enjoyed it and while not a great one, it however was to be one of the better action films I have seen of the last year and one of very few which I might keep a hold of.
6,5/10
|
|
