TV Discussion Fisto's Disco: The LACWAC Social Thread

We will never forget you PS2. You were a classic.

 

Jedi Knight Fett

Do you have a favorite game for the PS2?

I always loved the Medal of Honor games myself.

 

Battlefront 1 and 2 there classic.

Also

There is swearing in this video. The interview will not be shown in major chains because of threats by hackers.

 

It got straight up cancelled. I hate North Korea so much.

 

Aaaand here is a rant that is close to my heart. Those of me who've seen me on the site for a while probably know I'm an ardent spaceflight aficionado, and this hits close to home:



Tyson tells it like it is.

 

At least all major movie chains are Cancelled in America Go Canada looks like your not afraid oh threats that the US security said were not credible.

 

Spoilers!

Spoiler: The Hobbit The Battle of the Five Armies Revew

The Hobbit trilogy came with an expectation of matching its masterpiece of a predecessor in The Lord of the Rings, an arguably insipid expectation considering how much lighter and smaller the source material was. Perhaps The Hobbit should have been a two-parter, streamlining the entire affair into more condensed, propulsive narratives. Yet in all honesty, upon completion of this trilogy there is a part of me that is extremely gratified at knowing that Galadriel’s voice over at the beginning ofFellowship of the Ring has now become its own narrative. The Lord of the Rings had the advantage of a much darker story, with each book represented in one film, two luxuries The Hobbit did not have. A children’s tale, upon receiving orders from Warner Bros. for three films, became an ensemble piece to the original trilogy. Each film was given its own flavor, but if Peter Jackson hadn’t managed to land the final installment, everything would have crumbled apart. As noted above, The Hobbit trilogy is based primarily on the titular book by J. R. R. Tolkien, padded with material from Tolkien’s own notes, The Simarillion, and the filmmakers themselves. As such, each film, despite the efforts of its creative team, somewhat lacked the singular focus that the original trilogy had in each installment. It’s not as if each film didn’t have its own arc, but the characters and narrative depended heavily upon the ending working in order to provide the appropriate emotional catharsis that’s been laid out so carefully and slowly throughout the previous two installments. The ending does work thankfully and it works in a truly spectacular fashion. Clocking in at a small 144 minutes (this is Jackson we’re talking about), The Battle of the Five Armies is a bombastic final piece that does the most difficult job of a prequel ender spectacularly: tie up its own narrative while successfully leaving threads for the original storyline open in a germane fashion.


The final film in a trilogy has traditionally been the weakest. Return of the Jedi was in places cringe-inducing, considering the greatness of its predecessors. Revenge of the Sithseemed to be content with cramming everything and not really providing resolution to much of it. The Godfather: Part III is more often than not forgettable. Return of the Kingwas a great film in its own right, bogged down in the end with no Scourge of the Shire and roughly seventeen endings (one could argue that the Oscar should have gone to either of its predecessors). The Battle of the Five Armies is the strongest of the three in its own series, even though the narrative arc in An Unexpected Journey was superior (I realize that I am in the relative minority here on that front). It’s the most action-packed, the most propulsive of the three, yet there is also the nagging feeling that it feels like an entire third act and not its own film. That is not to say the film is a bad one, far from it in fact. Yet that narrative stretch does hurt the film in places, leaving me for one wanting a few more of those quiet moments (perhaps in the extended addition, they will arrive). The opening sequence is indicative of that reality, setting in course a propulsive feature that really doesn’t stop and breathe until the final frames. If The Hobbit had to exist as a trilogy and not as a duology (which would have perhaps been preferable), the second film from should have begun at Mirkwood and ended at Smaug’s roasting of Laketown. That would’ve given the final film the opportunity to open quietly and rest in the midst of all the sword fighting to let the film breathe a little more. To make another quibble, there are certain portions of the film that simply become too embittered with CGI. It’s not nearly as awful as the recent catastrophe Exodus: Gods and Kings and certainly is more polished than the Star Wars prequels and for all intents and purposes it looks pretty great. There’s just a few sequences there that glimmer and gleam far more than they naturally should, to the point where it takes away any semblance of realism. It’s unfortunate that that is the case here because it becomes awfully distracting from the character work at hand. Thankfully it doesn’t dog the entire film but the sequences impacted do stand out in that regard.

That being said, this flawed but thrilling installment begins with a thunderous explosion. The action picks up right where the predecessor left it, in the treacherous firestorm left by the evil dragon Smaug. Within minutes he decimates Laketown, reveling in his absolute destruction as an overwhelming number of civilians perish in fiery deaths. The sheer catastrophe is horrifying and the Hobbit team is well aware of that. There’s no overwhelming carnage, as the terror wrought is evident enough. The title sequence appears on screen, and from there on it’s a split between several story lines until they all converge upon the dwarf mountain of Erebor. As it happens, the whispers of Dragon Sickness that had befallen Thorin Oakenshield when he entered his old home in The Desolation of Smaug have now become full fledged, the film drawing numerous parallels between the Dwarvish king and the dragon Smaug. A Shakespearean tragedy begins to unfold with Thorin quietly becoming unfazed with the sheer loss of life upon the town that had given him refuge. He instead retreats further and further into his mountain of gold, fortifying the gate to Erebor so that the refugees fleeing the dragon might not enter to claim any part of the treasure. There’s no reasoning with him, there’s no trying to make him realize that the gold wasn’t why he came back to reclaim his homeland. King Thranduil, never one to waste a moment to reclaim something of his and showing everyone else how superior his hair is, shows up with his army, determined to take what belonged to him from the dwarves if they did not part with it readily. Bard, initially hesitant, tries to reason with Thorin and implore on him the reality of the refugees. They have nothing and he had, after all, given his word that he would give them an exchange of the treasure so that they could rebuild their lives. There is no exchange. Bilbo takes the stolen Arkenstone to the forces below, sure that they could use it as a bargaining chip. Bard in desperation asks if Thorin would have the stone and peace or if he would have war. Thorin would have war.

The titular battle between the five armies is something to behold. The forty-five minute long battle sequence thankfully isn’t just one single slog of warfare. There’s a plethora of various ins and outs, various armies pulling back and forth, and a wide array of locales through which the battle sequence is staged. It never feels like there’s a constant droll in a specific fight, which is of the necessity. Say what you will about Jackson’s tendency to indulge in largesse, but the man knows how to direct an action sequence, or in this case, an action film. While other, lesser directors constantly keep their cameras on to focus in the action itself or the massive explosions everywhere, Jackson knows one key thing: the characters trump the action. His camera knows where to be at just the right moment, catching glimpses of our most well-known characters so the constant fighting doesn’t become overbearing. But perhaps the most thrilling fight sequence in the entire film happens early on, after the title credits open. Gandalf is still imprisoned within Dol Goldur, close to death. Yet a quiet string of music from the incredible Howard Shore raises our skin. Galadriel herself walks into the Necromancer’s holdout, Lord Elrond and Saruman the White following suit. The White Council attacks and fights the Nine with an incredible prowess, the veteran Lee especially showing off some serious chops as Saruman cuts through his adversaries as if they were largely made of paper. And then the shrouds of deception fall. Sauron himself comes to light and Galadriel proves that she is, indeed, the most powerful elf in all of Middle-Earth. With all of her strength, she tears apart Sauron’s henchmen (for lack of a better phrase), banishing the Dark Lord himself into the east. This takes all of her strength, however and the task of congaing Sauron becomes one of tense debate. “Leave Sauron to me,” Saruman thunders with a quiet gravitas, a dark omen of what was to shortly come.

The film comes to a beautiful close with what essentially ties into the opening sequence of Fellowship of the Ring, where Gandalf knocks on elderly Bilbo’s door. The camera pans over a map of The Hobbit’s journey and the screen fades away. Billy Boyd’s heartfelt “The Last Goodbye” echoes across the screen as gorgeous sketches of the characters are brought to life before our very eyes. And now, with the trilogy concluded (okay, not the extended, but still), the true intent behind The Hobbit comes to light. There is little doubt that Warner Brothers wanted a lucrative title on their hands and this film will certainly fulfill those ambitions, but Peter Jackson and team did their absolute to ensure that this trilogy not merely serve as a part of the world. They wanted to tie it together to The Lord of the Rings so this entire epic could be enjoyed as one great saga. On that front, they have largely succeeded. The visuals have been great, the script is largely stellar, and the performances are truly exceptional. Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage alone could carry the entire production with their perfect Bilbo and Thorin, but everyone involved gives their full commitment to this lavish production and it shows. There’s a bond between all of the actors that provides a germane emotional heft to the entire procedure that manages to transcend its own boundaries. And the script has been intelligent in providing a few small touches that tie in the whole saga, from Thorin gifting Bilbo Mithril, to Bilbo keeping an acorn from Beorn’s garden to plant as a tree and Thranduil sending Legolas off to find Aragorn. That the team has managed to make those reveals largely organic and not feel thrown in just for the sake of connections is an achievement that truly serves the larger purpose of making a massive magnum opus. That magnum opus at least for me has been fully achieved. Time truly cannot move quickly enough for me to at last see it all in its chronological, extended glory: There and Back Again. Perhaps more than anything else, to whatever degree one has enjoyed each installment of this six-part journey, there’s the understanding that Peter Jackson and his team truly love the world created by Professor Tolkien’s magical words. There have been highs and there have been lows, but that magic never leaves and that’s an impressive accomplishment in and of itself. Everything else is a plethora of cherries on the proverbial top. Thank you, Peter Jackson and team. We will be forever grateful.

9/10

Spoiler: Exodus Gods and Kings Review

Exodus: Gods and Kings is yet another entry into the year of Biblical filmmaking and for all of its splendor and extravagant set pieces, it falls remarkably short of reasonable expectations. Director Ridley Scott tries to make this film a sort of competition between two brothers, a reasonable attempt to anyone who knows anything about the tale of Moses. Yet their relationship in the film is given about as much weight as a nonchalant side glance. What plagues the film (pun intended) is a complete lack of understanding as to where the narrative thrust lies. As it turns out, his controversial casting decisions of having white royalty with secondary characters, soldiers, and slaves being played by actors of color needn’t have existed. Christian Bale manages to bring something to the role of Moses, but the character is so horribly written that it doesn’t manage to leave behind any impression whatsoever. Joel Edgerton basically is a cipher on screen with more bronzer than half of L.A. Sigourney Weaver is basically there to look villainous and deliver the three lines she’s been given. The film’s ultimate sin is how it puts spectacle clearly ahead of characters. Battles only work when you care about the characters in it and in Exodus as it is is so grand in scope that it completely forgets the characters that populate it. Four writers that share Oscar pedigree write the script, which may have ultimately been a problem, considering the film never actually bothers to coalesce into something resembling coherent storytelling. As a result, when you leave the theater because you have way too much money on your hands, more than likely you’re going to forget about what you just saw in about three seconds. More than likely, you’ll stare sadly at your wallet and perhaps even your watch, wondering what else you might have been able to accomplish in three hours.

The most controversial aspect about the movie (outside of its very existence), is it’s casting. Having basically the entirety of the leads be white while they’re supposed to be Egyptian is bad enough, considering that is the twenty-first century and ethnically appropriate casting really ought not to be that difficult. What was controversial from the very beginning only became worse as time went on. To begin with, Ridley Scott essentially said that he hired white actors because the film wouldn’t get funding with “a Mohammed or whatever”, which in and of itself is a patently offensive statement. But moreover, in the age when still the overwhelming majority of lead actors are white, it’s simply a horrifying practice to accept. You’re Ridley Scott, for the love of… it’s no as if he doesn’t actually have clout in Hollywood. To hear the director of Alien andGladiator say something so patently gruesome is just mind boggling. To acknowledge the existence of discrimination in Hollywood is one thing, to patently become a part of it and then trying to justify it is simply ridiculous. To top it off, Bale gave a bizarre interview in which he discussed the difficulty of playing the role with his skin (which, what?). I like Bale quite a bit as an actor and he brought a significant sense of gravitas to Batman, but a sunburn isn’t comparable to minority actors who missed out on this role because of the color of their own skin. Outside of casting, their use within the film only makes it worse. The makeup and design for these characters is beyond offensive, akin to blackface that was used through so much of Hollywood history – seriously, just how much bronzer was used in the making of this film? And it’s not even consistent – Edgerton’s Pharaoh Ramses at times seems like he made a trip to his local tanning salon and in some other scenes it looks like he was born in a pool of caramel.

As it make up for the leads being inappropriately cast, Scott fills secondary roles with minority actors yet they’re given such little to do it mostly comes off as an empty gesture. Talented actors such as Indira Varma and María Valverde are given extremely little to do. The couple of scenes they’re given are beyond fleeting. Yet minority actors aren’t the only ones who get the grift. Sigourney Weaver’s Tuya is there to simply sulk in the background and look mildly irritated, as if Starbucks ran out of her favorite sandwich and she’s allergic to every other variety. Aaron Paul, whose performance inBreaking Bad clearly is demonstrative of his acting chops, is heavily prevalent throughout the film but is given no challenging material and garners a total of about five lines of dialogue. And he manages to cast a child as God, which is perhaps the most original thing about the movie, even though as a result the deity sounds more like a pissed off boarding school student than anything else. With just Weaver and Paul, one wonders why Scott took so much flak for his casting if they were going to be given such little work to do. That question is only compounded by the performances given by Edgerton and Bale as the main duo. Neither is given material that rises above mediocrity and it seems as if the actors themselves are understanding of that fact, so flat are they on screen. Bale is basically a saint. Edgerton is an arrogant ass. That is the extent to which Scott tries to understand them and that complete lack of critical thinking shows in every frame of the movie where this torment between two brothers is supposed to show. The scenes that suffer the most from this are the ones where you ought to feel cathartic over these two brothers fighting against each other, but then you realize that you have no idea why anyone in this film is doing anything at all outside of basic plot mechanics. So it all falls flat.

The trailers for Exodus on a visual spectacle scale seemed pretty great. As it is, it seems that the budget went into the trailer and not the actual film, which is a shame. The CGI is so overpowering that it’s mind-numbing. Certainly in big budget filmmaking, CGI and its occasional overuse has become rudimentary. For example, in the much superior The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, there’s a shot of the goblin king dying that is simply overdone. But it’s enjoyable and fun because the story is there and the characters are largely so richly drawn out. On the other end of the spectrum, even in the awful Attack of the Clones, where the CGI was actively far more annoyingly nauseating, there was something happening on screen that was remotely interesting. Here the visual effects are thrown constantly at your face, with Scott wasting an enormous amount of time on shots of the sweeping Egyptian vistas instead of actually working on his characters. And the thing is, all those sweeping shots that looked so impressive in the trailer somehow manage to look abominable in the context of the film itself, made worse because there’s simply far too much attention being paid to them. A plethora of CGI can be a little annoying, but if the script and director had worked on its narrative properly, that wouldn’t matter as much in the end. When it is this prevalent in a film where the story is given so little attention, it’s perhaps more than distracting. It’s patently offensive. Nor does Scott feel comfortable in 3-D, where the camera just focuses on the least engaging parts of the action and expects the audience to be wowed by it.

The action sequences in and of themselves may be spectacular, but ring remarkably superfluous. There isn’t a dearth of spectacle here, yet it doesn’t feel consequential (not just because the film is rated PG-13 and there’s little blood in the battles). It’s because you simply don’t care. Who lives, who dies, it’s largely devoid of any legitimate emotional heft. A smarter film would lay the groundwork for the friendship between Ramses and Moses before the prophecy began to delve a wedge between the two. The wedge is there from the very beginning and thusly the entire experience is sapped of any catharsis. There are two sequences in the film that largely work. The aforementioned battle against the Hittites largely works on the scale of spectacle and the horror of each first-born Egyptian being killed is easily Scott’s best work in the film and he manages to imbue a dark sense of melancholia in it. Darren Aronofsky’s Noah, which certainly had its flaws, was at the very least ambitious and driven by a desire to produce a biblical epic that was bold and questioned some of the darkest material present in the Bible. Noah felt revolutionary and the debate around it proved that the film actually had something to say, something to add into the cultural zeitgeist, regardless of how much you liked it. Exodus is completely flat, rudimentary, an overblown extravaganza of hideously, obviously cheap CGI with no characters at its core, nor a decent script. It seems content to merely ride on the name of a director who, once upon a time, actually made decent, often great films and now is stuck in the make-believe land where the hubris of his past somehow can salvage the sheer mediocrity of his present. All I felt throughout the film was that the studio had $140 million lying around and had to do something with it. There may be one image that remains in your head, however faint it may be. It is of three white men parting a poorly constructed wave, leading an entire culture made up of minority extras to their freedom because only the fairest of them all are able to exert any type of independent will. Everyone else just remains sad at their fates because and instead follow new leaders without personal conviction of any sort. It’s hollow, despite all of the grandeur around it struggling to convince otherwise. Come to think of it, that can describe the entirety of this $140 million backfire from the mann who directed Gladiator, lest the marketing material forget to remind you of the director’s greatest hit.

3/10

 

Update the movie has been postponed in All of north America so Europe is the only place showing it I guess.

 

I'm so terrified of the pasty korean nerds who hacked some emails.

 

D'oh! :facepalm:

"Those of me"

Supposed to be "Those of you".

But I can't edit it due to the 30 minute timeout.

Erm... mods??? *Looks around hopefully*

 

Yes

I am so excited.

 

I'm beginning to think the people at work are getting to know me too well. We had our Secret Santa gift exchange at work today and this is what I wound up with.



They call it the Battle on Saleucami. I think it'll go nicely next to the mini X-Wing on my desk.

 

So its official the Interview is cancelled for good and will not be seen in theaters or put on Netflix or other streaming services for the foreseeable future.

 

But as far as I know the only thing that pissed off North Korea was that there was an assassination attempt in the movie no stereotyping that I could see so far.

There was also a political thriller to be set in North Korea that would have started filming next month but was cancelled by these events.

 

I wasn't going to go see it, but pulling back the film in my opinion was absolutely the wrong decision. It's bowing down because someone was offended. The reality that Sony pulled the film due to this act of petulant pettiness is astounding. Whether or not the film is good, it's creative expression and we shouldn't be in the business of allowing foreign government-sponsored hackers (allegedly) to dictate what we can and can't show. And it's not just this film, a North Korean-based film with Steve Carell is now also being pulled. Ridiculous.

 

The terrorists are winning!

 

does anyone remember the days of team America when we made fun of every country ever that was a great film

Do not watch it kids.