I’m hoping they can bring in She-Hulk at some point, she has a relatively easy backstory that can be fit into the existing marvel universe and they don’t need to cast a lady bodybuilder to play the role anymore.
I’m hoping for a She-Hulk vs Daredevil court drama honestly, PLEASE DO THIS NETFLIXs
That’s amusing because the movies have been driving some of the comics, as opposed to the other way around. Star-Lord had a much different wardrobe style before the Guardians movies.
I just watched “What we do in the shadows” which is a mockumentary about vampires. It was really funny, though unfortunately it relies a bit too much on cringe-comedy for my tastes. I was also rather impressed with some of the camera techniques and practical effects they pulled off.
Finally got around to see “Get Out”. I heard it was great when it came out but nobody in my group of friends wanted to go see it so I waited. Unfortunately I kind of spoiled myself today to the movie itself, but that thankfully didn’t take much out of it.
All I can say is “what a fucking movie”. It is absolutely incredible, suspenseful to the core, hits every note perfectly with an impeccable timing and keeps you guessing when it has to. It is beautifully shot with great acting and direction, and the subject matter is also very prescient for 2017. The only negative thing I have to say is that a jumpscare got me once, though that is basically the only one in the film and it doesn’t rely on them at all.
I am not talking about the story here because you should go in completely unspoiled and know nothing about the film. Just watch it.
How is being got by a jumpscare a negative thing? I’m not sure of either your point or your criticism. If there was only one jumpscare in the whole movie and it DID get you, that’s a 100% jumpscare success record, which is surely a positive?
Because jumpscares are an inherently cheap method of frightening the audience. It requires only trivial setup and relies on an involuntary physical reaction. There is little to no talent as a film maker required to execute them and they contain essentially no artistic merit or further anything within a movie.
I disagree. They have been cheapened by overuse, but I don’t think the cheapness is inherent. That’s like saying “playing sad string music at emotional moments in the movie is inherently cheap because it requires no setup and relies on an involuntary physical reaction. There is little to no talent as a film maker…” Of course it has become a cheap trick due to hack film makers relying on such music queues, but the cheapness isn’t inherent.
I think a good jumpscare still has its place in movies, especially horror movies. They are part of the movie maker’s tool kit, and while they can be overplayed just like any other technique, a single successful attempt at a jumpscare in movie isn’t a sign of moviemaking failure or cheapness.
The difference here is that sad string music is a cultural signifier. String music isn’t inherently sad, but its sadness it something that we as a culture have associated with it and then repeatedly reinforced. There is also the possibility to play with this or play against this culture signifier, i.e. playing a sad song over footage of a happy moment to tinge it bittersweet or melancholic.
A jumpscare on the other hand is little more than screaming “boo” at a tense audience. It is an involuntary, primal reaction that has no depth and no interplay or derives any additional value from context.
Okay, so how about showing naked people. Surely my involuntary primal reaction to seeing boobs has no depth. Done well, and used sparingly, nudity in movies is totally fine. Done badly and too often it’s just cheap. But showing nudity isn’t inherently cheap. Same with showing brutal violence. My reaction is primal and involuntary. But done well it can be effective.
Maybe you just don’t like being made to jump. That’s fine, but it doesn’t mean a single moviemaking technique should be entirely denigrated.
There’s a great video essay by Now You See It on jump scares. TL;DR: his conclusion is that, indeed, most jump scares suck and are used cheaply/poorly, but there are good, effective use cases for the technique that work when thought is put into them. Usually it’s just a matter of the right build-up and some consideration of the jump’s effect on the rest of the scene/movie.
Jump scares in movies are pretty much the same as jump scares IRL.
Imagine I go into a room and hide behind a door only to jump out at Rym.
Sometimes it won’t work. Then I look like a doofus.
Even if it works and Rym jumps, 99% of the time he’ll just roll his eyes at me. It wasn’t funny. It wasn’t clever. Even if I think it’s funny, nobody else does. It certainly wasn’t scary. There really are not a lot of positive things to say about this behavior.
On that extremely rare occasion a jump scare is somehow appropriate. There’s some sort of reason to do it. You get the timing and positioning just right. Everyone recognizes how good it was, including the victim.
The only good jump scare in a movie I can think of is in Alien when you think it’s an alien, but it’s actually Jonesy the cat.
We also saw The Breadwinner over the weekend. Very good and powerful, though it didn’t connect to me the same way Song of the Sea did. Still, I would highly recommend to anyone. Movies like these that challenge standard perceptions are so necessary these days.
New Starwars was aight, went really artsy in some scenes which I really loved.
I felt it had some pacing and consistency issues, but when it was good it was great. I enjoyed it well enough despite its flaws.
I watched Bright last night. It was not awful but not particularly good. It tries to do a bunch of things and doesn’t do a great job of any of them. They could’ve dropped the bad guys trying to resurrect the big bad as a plot point and the orc racism thing was pretty heavy handed without really saying much. Probably would’ve worked better as a series. Will Smith didn’t help anything.
Shape of Water was really, really good.
As an aside, I signed up for Moviepass a few months ago, and it seems very worthwhile. I have been seeing 2-3 movies per month since signing up, all for flat $9.99/month fee.
In This Corner of the World is hard to watch for, perhaps, the opposite reason Barefoot Gen is. The latter is hard to watch because it shows the consequences of the bombing of Hiroshima, the former because of the tension leading up to what you know is coming.
Having been to Hiroshima and spoken to survivors (on the 70th anniversary, no less) definitely makes it hit very close to home, but it’s a beautiful movie and hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves.
Movie Pass is pretty cool. It does make it so ill go see movies I’d normally not go see. Siince I’ve already paid 10 bucks for the month, why not go see anything you’re even remotely interested in seeing?