JCC Dear Jabba-wocky,

*sighs* I miss Pushing Daises.

 

It was based on one of the most influential horror novels of all time. And, yeah, actually that had nothing to do with it i guess tom's right again

 

what you people cant seem to understand is that will smith is an end in himself

 

Has Wocky answered BF2K1's question directly?

 

Did he ever ask me a direct question? He made a request in the OP that I complied with several pages ago. I'll address the I Am Will Smith issue momentarily.

 

Yes, Wocky has fulfilled his duties required from this thread.

 

the ******* ender sai commission on ****** action flix

 

So then, I Am Will Smith. I guess I wasn't aware that any significant number of people disliked the film. It tells a fairly simple story in simple but forceful fashion. Moreso than most action movies in any era, this demanded real acting from the protagonist. Smith was largely up to the challenge, successfully portraying the burdens of extreme social isolation. The mannequin scenes work, if only because of their panicked later iterations that suggest Smith never quite buys it himself. Likewise his complete unhinging at the death of his dog. The film does lose some of its momentum with the arrival of other humans. Nor is it particularly clear why the "smarter" vampires emerged so late. But the climax scenes pick up the early promise, with Smith's response while cornered being a nice if obvious look at what it is to be monstrous. The final scenes are weak in that they are too tidy, and sort of undercut this premise, but I don't see this is as a major setback for the film.

What else would you want from a film, particularly an action film? The action scenes were exciting and the plot was coherent. The central character was upright, interesting, and well acted. It was certainly an enjoyable entry in the genre, and there is no reason to discount it. What is all the skepticism about?

 

IMO, the movie fails, especially with regard to the original work its based on, because of the faceless nature of the villains. The title doesn't even really make sense in this context.

Personally, I see any kind of weakness at the end, especially if it undercuts the premise, to be a major setback to anything, no matter how good the bulk of it is because, at the end of the day, the ending is the conceit. An entertaining movie with a botched ending is just an intermittently enjoyable failure.

 

As a counterpoint, what of the fact that a number of excellent novels also have terrible endings, as this week's edition of the New Yorker explored in their discussion of classics like Wuthering Heights, Huckleberry Finn, and David Copperfield? Would you classify all those as "intermittently enjoyable failures" as well?

Also, I seem to notice a habit in the way you despise adaptations that aren't sufficiently deferential to their source material. Why? Unlike I, Robot, this film never really tried to capitalize on its predecessor's reputation. The entirety of the marketing campaign was Will Smith running on a treadmill. They were pretty clear that this was doing to be a pretty distinct vision, and they delivered on that promise. Would it be nice to see a a true film version of Omega Man? Sure. But I'm not going to fault this film for not being it when they weren't really trying to in the first place.

 

Who said anything about deferential. Many of the best adaptations have made significant departures from their source material. It's just a question of overall quality. In this case, retaining the title doesn't make sense, because the original ending of the novel (which is called I Am Legend, not The Omega Man, which is the name of a Charlton Heston adaptation of the novel that is better than the Will Smith version, though not the best of the three adaptations to date) rests on a conceit that the movie abandons in favor of chasing the zombie aesthetic currently in vogue.

As for endings, films are a different ball game than novels due to the compressed and time sensitive nature of their storytelling a bum ending can affect a film much more than it can a novel. Novels are more digressive and episodic, and if the ending doesn't quite live up to the story its not as big of a deal. A film is closer to a short story or a play in this regard. A bad ending sticks hard. Which isn't to say such a movie is unenjoyable or not worth watching at least once (See: Sunshine). Personally, when a movie sets up an evocative premise like I Am Legend and then utterly fails to deliver on the promise of the opening minutes, I'd say its not worth a rewatch. Also, Smith's character being a scientist who's partially responsible and hell bent on finding a cure is the worst kind of lazy blockbuster plotting.

 

Heh.

 

I would definitely say that a part of it is was that it totally didn't match the point of the title, and i think it's wrong to characterize it as an action film.

 

sunshine owns despite its lame and frankly a bit jarring third reel because the first two thirds are just. that. strong.

 

I like the part where Dr. Grant is possessed by the devil.

 

act =/= reel

But yeah, I liked Sunshine anyway. I didn't think the ending was bad so much as, yeah, jarring. Granted, I've only seen it once. I have been working my way back through Boyle's films so hopefully I'll get to it before long. Maybe it'll seem less strange now that I know it's coming... or not, who knows Either way, I liked it anyway.

 

I also liked Sunshine in spite of the end. I've seen it a couple of times in full, but it wasn't any less jarring for me the second time. It's almost like watching two movies in one, the shift in tone and pace and... everything, is just so intense. But now I just rewatch the first half, or scenes I like from the first half.

I totally disagree with this. because books aren't as compressed or time sensitive, a bad ending to a book sticks harder with me because I can't believe how much time I've invested in something that's ended up not delivering on the end. I don't feel as betrayed when a movie has a bad ending because, oh well, it was still just 3 hours at most. If it's taken me days/weeks to read a book then it's a much bigger deal to have to slog through a terrible ending that doesn't do justice to the rest of it. Analogizing a short story here makes NO sense to me. I've read plenty of short stories with crap endings - or that were crap the whole way through to be honest - and none of them bothered me half as much as, say Huck Finn or Mockingjay (just to choose two totally disparate examples).

 

I rarely rewatch anything other than action movies and comedies. Comedies for the jokes, if it's been a long time since last time and I don't remember them, and action movies obviously for the thrill scenes. Other than that, I rarely see the point of re-experiencing a story I already know.

 

Yeah, we had this conversation in another thread a while back, and I was surprised by how many people only watch movies once. I rewatch movies (and TV shows) I love constantly. Some things because they demand it (Arrested Development - which has jokes specifically written for multiple viewings, Primer), some things just because I enjoy them and I want to experience them again and again (Mean Girls, Firefly "The Message," The Fall, that one scene from The Social Network, etc.)

 

There are quite a few good movies I've seen that I don't really have any desire to watch again. The movies that get repeat viewings from me are ones that require it or have something truly special/groundbreaking going on.

 

There's very little I rewatch on my own. Mostly as there's so much I've not watched once. There may not be any movies that I've watched on my own more than about 5 times, although there's some tv I've watched more than that (Clerks the cartoon, possibly some of Clone High and Dilbert). I will, however, rewatch movies with other people plenty. Example, rewatched Paths of Glory over Thanksgiving because my brother was borrowing my copy of it. On my own, I generally don't see the strength to it.

 

I wish I'd known that was Mark Strong. Totally unrecognizable.

 

you work in hollywood and you've never heard the expression "third reel" to refer to the last 30 minutes of a film? watchu workin' on? abc family original series? STEP. YO. GAME. UP. SON.

and rewatching movies seems like a legit activity for someone working in/aspiring to work in film but as an adult i just dont have time for it. i only rewatch things these days with folks who havent seen whatever it is we're watching. sunshine is one of the only movies i have on dvd for this purpose lol

anyways, with that nonsense behind us, here's a video. SPOILERS this is the scene that, taken with the totality of the mood, themes, and set up of the rest of the film to that point, makes sunshine danny boyle's greatest film-making achievement:

 

IIRC most film reels are about 10 mins in length. The third reel would be about 20-30 mins in. I've only ever heard people refer to it as the third act.