Last movie watched...

Professor Bear · 22 February, 2012, 01:19:01 PM

A remake of the 1984 film of the same name, Footloose takes the original's allegorical narrative which utilises the stages of grief as a structure around which to build an affirmation of the virtues of secular government and the value of personal responsibility and reimagines it as a film about some feet which are loose.
It is impossible to evaluate it objectively because it takes pains to reference the original even if only to shit all over it, such as the retake of the tractor chicken scene from the original which here sees a character drive a tractor... over to some buses which they then race instead of tractors. Why does he drive a tractor over to these buses instead of walk 5 feet? To reference the original, of course - objectively, this action makes no sense unless it is an overt reference to what happened in the film of which this is a remake. Oh, and this small, arse-end-of-nowhere town has a Nascar track, because of course it does, all Southern American towns have a Nascar track where they have school buses remodeled like vehicles from Twisted Metal just sitting around that no-one will notice are missing and which high school kids can race and explode without anyone thinking "perhaps it is not the dancing but the taking drugs and then racing burning school buses which we should be discouraging". A mate walked into the cinema when the scene with the slow country ballad version of I Need A Hero was playing and coined the word "shitification", and I think that sums this up nicely, because it is without a doubt one of the worst films I have ever seen, with me sitting there going "fucking hell" at some new low for nearly two hours, be it the opening scene of kids graphically killed in a burning car so that we know Shit Has Got Real, the camera lingering on 8 year old girls grinding, a "big city nightclub" in which everyone is line dancing, the main character's past as an international gymnast, the bus race, the unlikeable female protagonist (you know you've got problems when your girlfriend-beating scene has the audience rooting for the boyfriend), and a finale which clearly takes place on a sound stage.
An awful, awful film - and I say that as someone who not only enjoyed Clerks 2, but was willing to both give this a fair go (the original is not great), but enjoy and like it even if it was terrible. This film is so terrible even SBT won't like it.

exilewood · 22 February, 2012, 03:02:37 PM

I have a strange, deep & possibly unaccountable love for the original 'Footloose'.

Talking of '80's movies - I saw "Near Dark" for the first time last night. How can a film so cool & made twenty-fucking-five years ago have managed to pass me by until now?

Tiplodocus · 22 February, 2012, 07:22:59 PM

Groupon are currently offering six months of LOVEFILM streaming service for 9.99.

That seems quite a bargain.

Gonk · 22 February, 2012, 07:27:21 PM

Professer Byah, I am amused at your post and in no way want to discourage you. However, I believe this process of "shitification" you have identified as taking place in the films you've (apparently painstakingly), studied, is a concept that could be applied to any film irrespective of its' content, and as a methodological tool for the evalution of films, it is an arbitary construct. Why, you could use the principle of "shitification" on Thomas the Tank Engine if you were so inclined.

I find it constitutes a kind of "higher boasting" to pick on unknown films and publicly "dis" them the way you do. Still you seem to enjoy the exercise and this shows in your posting, which I've mentioned is amusing.

At the end of the day, let us be clear about this, enjoyment of a film is natural, and does not require any further justification than that.

The Legendary Shark · 22 February, 2012, 07:38:08 PM

I like films about naked people.

Professor Bear · 22 February, 2012, 08:33:02 PM

Quote from: fonky on 22 February, 2012, 07:27:21 PM
Professer Byah, I am amused at your post and in no way want to discourage you. However, I believe this process of "shitification" you have identified as taking place in the films you've (apparently painstakingly), studied, is a concept that could be applied to any film irrespective of its' content, and as a methodological tool for the evalution of films, it is an arbitary construct. Why, you could use the principle of "shitification" on Thomas the Tank Engine if you were so inclined.

You misunderstand - "shitification" was a word used to describe, specifically, the cover of cheesey synth-rock classic I Need A Hero (which recently experienced a resurgence in non-ironic cultural relevance when used as a standard in the videogame Saints Row The Third) as a slow country ballad, but which can also broadly be applied in the same context as used there to the Footloose remake as a whole because it is a film which has been remade from an existing film - "covered", if you will - and as such a side-by-side comparison can be made not just of the story but of specific scenes and the realisation of certain characters, hence one thing can be observably and quantifiably said to have been made more excremental during the process of recreation.
By this rationale, you cannot evaluate Thomas the Tank Engine on the basis of shitification because that was not remade from an existing film, it was recontextualised from television to the medium of film, an entirely different discussion which, admittedly, does not preclude that some may find the film shit in comparison to the tv show, or vice versa.

As you say, "enjoyment" of film does not require justification, but equally 129 pages of board users simply saying "I liked this, so I shan't bother to evaluate it" would get old rather quickly, which is why I felt it necessary to go into a little detail as to why the Footloose remake is a film only a jerk would like. Which I can prove with science.

von Boom · 22 February, 2012, 08:42:29 PM

I believe that it has been scientifically proven already that all remakes are shite. Except for the ones that aren't of course.

JvB

Gonk · 22 February, 2012, 09:36:35 PM

Thanks prof.

Gonk · 22 February, 2012, 09:52:42 PM

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 22 February, 2012, 07:38:08 PM
I like films about naked people.

Yes Shark, I hear they're quite a popular genre.

Just as long as it doesn't invole kids or animals I don't have a problem with it.

JamesC · 23 February, 2012, 10:12:43 PM

Pontypool.

Fucking hell. What a load of old bollocks!

I can't believe so many on here recommended it - what's wrong with you people?

It was overlong, thought it was ten times cleverer than it was and I'm not convinced the premise actually makes any sense.
[spoiler] I mean if the virus (or whatever you want to call it) is transmitted via language, where does the whole attacking and eating people thing come from? Surely the virus should make people just talk insistently at each other a lot - and maybe shout things out - like zombie tourettes.
[/spoiler]

[spoiler]It reminded me a bit of that old Future Shock with the new idea that's actually an alien life form. That was great and all wrapped up in 6 pages! [/spoiler]

Noisybast · 24 February, 2012, 08:28:17 AM

Hey James - If time is an illusion and all events happen simultaneously, then...

COMMANDO FORCES · 24 February, 2012, 08:31:23 AM

I watched that 127 Hours last night and found it quite enjoyable. Very uplifting ending and some excellent acting by James Franco

That is all

Gonk · 24 February, 2012, 10:40:52 AM

I watched a good one the other night, "High Anxiety" by Mel Brooks. This man's deadpan humour is just so funny, and being interested in psychology I found his parody of psychoanalysis in this film hilarious, especially when he lectures on the oedipus complex and penis envy and suddenly realises there is a ten year old boy sitting in the front row!

mygrimmbrother · 24 February, 2012, 02:26:37 PM

I'm finding more and more modern films to be unwatchable these days. In the past couple of weeks alone I've been thoroughly underwhelmed by 'Real Steel', 'Cowboys & Aliens', 'Warhorse' and 'The new Conan'. In fact, I've turned them all off after 10-20 minutes. I'd also agree that Pontypool is a very flaky concept and not a very well-made film overall.

I even fell asleep during 'Tinker Tailor', which was excruciatingly well-made but just not very thrilling. I did make it all the way through 'In Time', mainly because Amanda Seyfried looked pretty stunning with that noir-bob hair.

Come on Hollywood, you used to try, even just a wee bit.

Anyway, TV's the new film. Only a couple of months til the new Game of Thrones.

radiator · 24 February, 2012, 02:40:19 PM

Quote'Real Steel', 'Cowboys & Aliens', 'Warhorse' and 'The new Conan'

To be fair, though I haven't seen any of those, I can surmise from the odd review/general word of mouth that I probably wouldn't enjoy any of them, and as a result have no plans to see them.

For recent blockbusters, I have been catching up on all the Marvel films in anticipation for The Avengers, and can say that I thoroughly enjoyed Captain America, Iron Man and Thor. All three verge on silliness at times, but are very well made films.

Marvel seem to have struck a winning formula for these films - and the key to their success seems to generally be casting a charismatic lead who can handle both action and comedy scenes - Robert Downey Jr, Chris Hemsworth and Chris Evans are all great in their roles - and hiring a decent director, not some Brett Ratner/McG type hack.

X Men First Class was bloody good, too.