|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 4, 2018 15:58:58 GMT
We have native Brits being maimed and killed by Jihadis and enabled by so-called bleeding heart globalists and what does Hollywood and Euro film companies consider suitable expression of this? A story about a foreigner who is seeking revenge against white terrorists. I swear, if someone did a movie that reflected actual reality in its moral frame it would probably be a box office hit. Reality in its moral frame tells us that most native Brits killed by terrorist in the UK are done so by home-grown criminals, working on a very small scale. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jan 4, 2018 18:21:27 GMT
Reality in its moral frame tells us that most native Brits killed by terrorist in the UK are done so by home-grown criminals, working on a very small scale. But they have made movies on that subject for decades. There has never been a shortage of white on white (or even white on black) crime movies. That part of reality is covered. Its the reality of foreigner violence against the native that isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 5, 2018 11:47:37 GMT
Reality in its moral frame tells us that most native Brits killed by terrorist in the UK are done so by home-grown criminals, working on a very small scale. But they have made movies on that subject for decades. There has never been a shortage of white on white (or even white on black) crime movies. That part of reality is covered. Its the reality of foreigner violence against the native that isn't. But, then again at least as far as thrillers are concerned (particularly those of a certain type) the criminals, or enemy, are very often foreigners. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jan 5, 2018 14:37:48 GMT
But, then again at least as far as thrillers are concerned (particularly those of a certain type) the criminals, or enemy, are very often foreigners. Russians are popular. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 5, 2018 14:41:57 GMT
But, then again at least as far as thrillers are concerned (particularly those of a certain type) the criminals, or enemy, are very often foreigners. Russians are popular. Not everywhere they're not lol |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jan 5, 2018 14:51:11 GMT
Not everywhere they're not lol Dark villains are less common in Hollywood than white ones. A lot less. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 5, 2018 14:59:45 GMT
Not everywhere they're not lol Dark villains are less common in Hollywood than white ones. A lot less. But you are talking about the 'reality of foreigner violence against the native '. Foreigners can be black or white. I would certainly agree that ethnic villains are less common in Hollywood. But black actors in leading roles of any type are less common, period. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jan 5, 2018 15:03:29 GMT
But you are talking about the 'reality of foreigner violence against the native '. Foreigners can be black or white. I would certainly agree that ethnic villains are less common in Hollywood. But black actors in leading roles of any type are less common, period. I am talking specifically about the absurdity of this particular film. Irish terrorism is not a big deal right now. Other types of terrorism are. It's not the only example either. There was a recent film the Limehouse Golem about foreigners in England being victimized (they even bring Karl Marx into it). |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 5, 2018 15:31:02 GMT
I am talking specifically about the absurdity of this particular film. Irish terrorism is not a big deal right now. I agree, but that's why, for me, it worked. Piers Brosnan imho made for a pretty convincing impersonation of a Gerry Adams, one of the architects of the NI peace accord. His character's concern to keep the lid on things (not just his personal predicament) and his various strong sentiments in favour of keeping the bad old days back as history, meant that one was more aware that Jackie Chan's character was just an increasingly dangerous anomaly in a new peace. You would be best arguing against Stephen Leather (author of the original book 'The Chinaman') for his character choices, which the film merely reflects in adaptive terms. I think the Karl Marx thread there was, again, largely down to the source novel and Ackroyd's keenness to exploit some of the real life figures who used the British Library at the time (although the result on screen seemed a little forced). However I seem to remember that the Golem had nothing against foreigners per se, I remember, killing a variety of folk. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jan 5, 2018 15:49:24 GMT
I think the Karl Marx thread there was, again, largely down to the source novel and Ackroyd's keenness to exploit some of the real life figures who used the British Library at the time (although the result on screen seemed a little forced). However I seem to remember that the Golem had nothing against foreigners per se, I remember, killing a variety of folk. It is all about (as Lovecraft and Capote said) the money providers choosing stories based on their tastes, not that of the public. This is why they (decades apart) bemoaned the control of message in literature (same for film) because it was contrary to the best tradition of art to have such a narrow theme filter. It was bad in their day but so much worse now. If a film about British natives dealing with a Jihadi attack were made today, it would resonate so much as truth-which is what good art used to be about. Reflecting truth. Not that a story about a Chinese person's experience with terrorism is irrelevant, but making it a Jihadi attack would have been more logical. The two traditional themes in Western storytelling are "threat from a dangerous outsider/threat from unhealthy insider." The Iliad, the Odyssey, Hamlet, Moby Dick, Dracula, Frankenstein, all follow that theme. For Hollywood and it's film relations in Europe the theme is usually the threat coming from the native against the good foreigner or the unhealthy insider (who is seen as a positive not a negative). The Jackie Chan film honors the tradition since he is the good foreigner being victimized by the insider (within the UK realm-the Irish would be the home team). |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 5, 2018 16:13:04 GMT
It is all about (as Lovecraft and Capote said) the money providers choosing stories based on their tastes, not that of the public. You are entitled to your opinion, but if this was the case Hollywood (and most publishing houses) would collapse very quickly, since the business model is to sell to the public what the public wants, for if the public does not have a taste for something it will not be consumed. If you really think that literature, and media generally of which it is a part, do not have a message, then you need to read McLuhan. Also on a less subtle way, how many films have you see which ultimately propound the tropes of the American Way and reflect frontier values? Once again you are entitled to your opinion. But there are other truths. For a good film based around jihadi attacks on native UK, I would recommend Four Lions www.imdb.com/title/tt1341167/reference . It is certainly a more subtle affair than London Has Fallen - an example of that which one presumes you would want to see more of.. Only in that it would best suit what you would hold superior. That is not the theme of Hamlet, for a start which revolves a good deal around revenge and justice, moral corruption as well as appearance and reality. And you simplify too much with the others. Hollywood, it needs be said, plays on various themes. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jan 5, 2018 16:54:04 GMT
You are entitled to your opinion, but if this was the case Hollywood (and most publishing houses) would collapse very quickly, since the business model is to sell to the public what the public wants, for if the public does not have a taste for something it will not be consumed. If you really think that literature, and media generally of which it is a part, do not have a message, then you need to read McLuhan. Also on a less subtle way, how many films have you see which ultimately propound the tropes of the American Way and reflect frontier values? Once again you are entitled to your opinion. But there are other truths. For a good film based around jihadi attacks on native UK, I would recommend Four Lions www.imdb.com/title/tt1341167/reference . It is certainly a more subtle affair than London Has Fallen - an example of that which one presumes you would want to see more of.. That is not the theme of Hamlet, for a start which revolves a good deal around revenge and justice, moral corruption as well as appearance and reality. And you simplify too much with the others. Hollywood, it needs be said, plays on various themes. No they wouldnt collapse-just as film companies havent--because they have more money than their competition. This is the biggest misconception of all. The Hollywood majors have unlimited financing and probably always have. As early as 1930, Hollywood had 80% control of UK cinemas because they had friends in government who did not restrict their content. They also got around restrictions by "quota quickies." The idea that it is a market or audience driven business is false. There was already a monopoly by 1940 which is why SIMPP was founded (which became United Artists). Of course media has a message-this is what I said. Traditional native media tends to be one of dealing with outside threats and internal sickness. Hollywood (foreign owned) media is the opposite--so take for example the Day the Earth Stood Still--it is about a benevolent outsider trying to help the sick society. By contrast, RKO's the Thing is about the society (out in the wilds) encountering an alien threat (and a sick insider--the scientist who wants to befriend the alien). Hamlet is about a prince who needs to cure a sickness in the society--the corruption of the family and government. Everyone is killed BUT the society endures through Horatio. Moby Dick is about a sick insider---Ahab, who, due to his encounter with a dangerous outsider (the whale) leads others to destruction (but Ishmail lives). Frankenstein--the sick insider who creates a life (both a sick insider and dangerous outsider) which brings more sickness to the society (harms his family). Not entirely negative since Walton the explorer learns from the tale. Dracula is entirely about dealing with a dangerous outsider and a sick insider (Renfield). War of the Worlds--dangerous outsider--neutralized not by a sick insider--but germs that are dangerous to the outsider. There is a biological component to art. Four Lions was an indie film-does not appear to have been made by any of the major Hollywood studios or UK associates. No surprise. They would never go for that theme. There have been Hollywood films that feature negative portrayals of muslims--Executive Decision has a suicide bomber in London. But that a special case since it was Silver Pictures as the production company. |
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Jan 6, 2018 14:50:08 GMT
SPL 2: A Time for Consequences 2015
★★★½
An unrelated sequel (driven by plot compared to the original's straight up, taut action) that sees Wu Jing and Simon Yam returning in new roles. Actually SPL 2 had a strong cast with all round solid performances on show. For me Louis Koo stood out as he simply oozed of creepy menace as the mastermind of the major crime syndicate in urgent need of a heart transplant that only his unwilling brother could provide, causing the ripple effect to what was to implode.
To start off I was kind of lukewarm, but steadily the characters and story, which heavy on context and definition began to grow on me and it eventually comes on big. There's no trying to connect the dots, as each thing is laid out in front of you in a careful, deliberate manner involving undercover police operations, organ trafficking, kidnappings, corruption and a sick little girl in need of a bone marrow donor. This leads to everything coming around 360 degrees in a real twist of fate when all these pivotal elements collide beyond their control and the usage of the action felt more in line with the story.
The action choreography on the other hand won me over straight away. No camera tricky, and few quick edits in what was technically flawless in the picturesque framing of the high risk stunts, bone crunching martial arts, or hyperbolic shootouts and lethal blade work. Each exhilarating set-up seemed to up the ante, although for me it peaked at the midway point with the prison riot. But still the ballistic showndown finale between Tony Jaa, Wu Jing and Zhang Jin is nothing short than spectacular including the backdrop where it takes place. In spite of some clunky story-telling, it's riveting modern day HK action cinema.
|
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Jan 6, 2018 15:02:08 GMT
Street Fighter (1994)I pretty much only bought this as an "impulse" buy, well, I did have a small hope for seeing the stunning Kylie Minogue in a leotard kicking ass and taking names as Cammy, sadly that was not to be seen, and overall it was dominated with terrible acting (very likely one of the worst movies Van Damme did back then) and a complete mess of a "plot". Still, Raúl Juliá delivered a good role as the main villain Bison, sadly I think this was his last film and well, he was probably one of the few who actually did something good in it. However, the film incredible enough became a big hit back in 1994, still it was probably more thanks to the popularity (I believe) of the video games than Van Dammes star power, because it sure aint shit his acting skills which drawed people to the cinemas. The action is more or less on par with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III (1993) or the god awful Power Rangers movies, it is stuff for kiddies and not, well more grown ups and thus probably a reason to why no Kylie in leotard for the next 90 minutes. All in all, I think Mortal Combat (1997) is the far superior movie in every way, and that is pretty much it. 4/10 A friend lent this to me last week, where I handed him "Double Dragon". Thank-god for Robert Patrick and some really bizzare moments in that one, because the tone was similar. It's been some time since I've watched "Streetfighter", but my feelings were very similar. I remember being quite bored. It was water-down silly, but not bad enough to be entertaining. I don't see my impression changing much when I get around to it, but curiosity always wins out in the end. |
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Jan 6, 2018 16:07:17 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.  |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 8, 2018 15:47:24 GMT
No they wouldnt collapse-just as film companies havent--because they have more money than their competition. This is the biggest misconception of all. The Hollywood majors have unlimited financing and probably always have. As early as 1930, Hollywood had 80% control of UK cinemas because they had friends in government who did not restrict their content. They also got around restrictions by "quota quickies." The idea that it is a market or audience driven business is false....
After this last line I really stopped reading. When someone is blind to such a big fact of the film industry, then how can one take any other assertions seriously?
Also your attempt to simplify the concerns of whole swathes of literature into a "sick outsider" theme is, to this graduate in English Literature at least, unconvincing. As Harold Bloom, FR Leavis et al ought to be able to show you, one size really does not fit all.
But you are naturally entitled to your opinions, and you're welcome to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jan 8, 2018 17:57:55 GMT
After this last line I really stopped reading. When someone is blind to such a big fact of the film industry, then how can one take any other assertions seriously?
Also your attempt to simplify the concerns of whole swathes of literature into a "sick outsider" theme is, to this graduate in English Literature at least, unconvincing. As Harold Bloom, FR Leavis et al ought to be able to show you, one size really does not fit all.
But you are naturally entitled to your opinions, and you're welcome to them.
You are just naive about the situation. 6 giant corporations control most of the media. They have so much money and power they get governments to give them tax subsidies. They claim they cannot take risks--then buy another company for $60 billion. You trust the media too much IMO. And your mention of Harold Bloom brings to mind something said by Truman Capote which is also relevant: Truman Capote: "it has brought about the rise of what I call the Jewish Mafia in American letters. This is a clique of New York-oriented writers and critics who control much of the literary scene through the influence of the quarterlies and intellectual magazines. All these publications are Jewish-dominated and this particular coterie employs them to make or break writers by advancing or withholding attention.... I only object when one particular group--and it could just as well be Southern, or Roman Catholic, or Marxist, or vegetarian--gets a strangle hold on American criticism and squeezes out anybody who doesn't conform to its own standards.... Today, because of the predominance of the Jewish Mafia, they're not being given that opportunity. This is something everyone in the literary world knows but never writes about." Lovecraft said it too: Regarding its influence on literary & dramatic expression—it is not so much that the country is flooded directly with Jewish authors, as that Jewish publishers determine just which of our Aryan writers shall achieve print & position. That means that those of us who least express our own people have the preference. Taste is insidiously moulded along non-Aryan lines—so that, no matter how intrinsically good the resulting body of literature may be, it is a special, rootless literature which does not represent us. The feelings & ideals presented are not our feelings & ideals—so that today our newest authors are as exotic to us as the French symbolists or Japanese hokku-writers. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 9, 2018 9:08:49 GMT
You are just naive about the situation. 6 giant corporations control most of the media. They have so much money and power they get governments to give them tax subsidies. They claim they cannot take risks--then buy another company for $60 billion. You trust the media too much IMO. It is not a question of 'trusting the media', which is another thing entirely. I simply note that media companies are, despite what you claim, clearly arranged around a business model of pleasing the market. If a business did not serve the market and (in the media) pleasing audiences, then it would not long survive. Again, after this opening anti-Semitic salvo, I didn't feel the need to read on much, but thanks anyway. Quite why you have abruptly raised such things is something only you can explain. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jan 9, 2018 9:20:54 GMT
It is not a question of 'trusting the media', which is another thing entirely. I simply note that media companies are, despite what you claim, clearly arranged around a business model of pleasing the market. If a business did not serve the market and (in the media) pleasing audiences, then it would not long survive. Why would they not survive when they have more money than some countries? By their own estimates movies represent a tiny fraction of their operation. Pleasing the market presumably means making things that audiences want right? Then why did Hollywood report the worst domestic box office since 1992? That does not sound like a pleased market. And there is nothing anti-jewish about making a statement of fact. Marlon Brando (and Rachel Weicz) said, Hollywood is controlled by Jews. It is no more anti-jewish than saying a pizza parlor named Luigi's is run by Italians. Is that anti-Italian? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 9, 2018 9:29:34 GMT
Why would they not survive when they have more money than some countries? By their own estimates movies represent a tiny fraction of their operation. Pleasing the market presumably means making things that audiences want right? Then why did Hollywood report the worst domestic box office since 1992? That does not sound like a pleased market. 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. |
|
