There's actually a significant Congressional investigation/lawsuit over whether the CIA gave false information to the director in order to retroactively justify torture.
I'm almost done with Tim Wiener's book on the CIA, and I do not understand why they haven't been dissolved yet. After MKUltra, two fuck-ups in Iraq, the report claiming that the 1967 race riots and peace movement were caused by Cuban agents trained to start revolution, it's shocking they've found some way to stick around. It's not because everyone trusts them. Nixon tried to fiscally handicap them. The Church commission destroyed public opinion of them. Now we've got this, and while I don't think the CIA did leak info I hope Congress is convinced they did because it could destroy their funding and (with a little luck) dissolve them.
There's actually a significant Congressional investigation/lawsuit over whether the CIA gave false information to the director in order to retroactively justify torture.
I'm almost done with Tim Wiener's book on the CIA, and I do not understand why they haven't been dissolved yet. After MKUltra, two fuck-ups in Iraq, the report claiming that the 1967 race riots and peace movement were caused by Cuban agents trained to start revolution, it's shocking they've found some way to stick around. It's not because everyone trusts them. Nixon tried to fiscally handicap them. The Church commission destroyed public opinion of them. Now we've got this, and while I don't think the CIA did leak info I hope Congress is convinced they did because it could destroy their funding and (with a little luck) dissolve them.
Because, like every other government agency, most people only pay attention to the fuck ups. 99% of the CIAs resources are spent on boring and essential intelligence work. Just because a few high profile operations create historical scandals doesn't mean you should shut it down. Are you now going to say we should shut down the USPS because they lost a few letters?
Because, like every other government agency, most people only pay attention to the fuck ups. 99% of the CIAs resources are spent on boring and essential intelligence work. Just because a few high profile operations create historical scandals doesn't mean you should shut it down. Are you now going to say we should shut down the USPS because they lost a few letters?
What essential intel work are they doing/have they done? They didn't even have agents in Moscow until the 80s. Everyone from Johnson to Bush criticized them for having no more info than the newspaper. The biggest info cache of the Cold War was developed from info from the Brits, and the Russians knew about it the whole time.
Finally got around to seeing Chronicle and it's an interesting look at the difference between strength and power.
It approaches being the deconstruction of the power fantasies that drive some of the fandom (and creation) of superhero comics that Watchmen is to the superheroes themselves.
I think the found footage trope is a meaningful artistic choice and not just a gimmick, but I don't think the director was able to deliver on it to the very end.
In the first act I'm fairly certain that you only see bad things happening to Andrew when he's in front of the camera: getting threatened and beat up by his drunk father, getting hassled by bullies, getting sort of unjustly called out for being a creeper by the head cheerleader. It isn't until after he gets the powers that anything good happens to him (namely, when it's revealed that he's the best at using the powers). This then progresses to (I think) the first time he talks directly into the camera when he goes full villain.
It is unfortunate that the gag sort of fell apart at the end when they start using security cameras, and then just convenient flying iPads, to show the super brawl at the end.
I really liked the use of the Steve character. He's introduced as a foil and you think "he must be the asshole villain", and then it turns out he's a cool guy, and then it turns out that he is a foil, and a cool guy and the Andrew is actually the asshole villain.
Andrews path to evil is both relate-able but not inevitable. It is revealed that they can be basically indestructible if they want to be but when Andrew has the row with his Dad, he lashes out in rage and hurts him when he didn't have to; it isn't defending yourself if the attacker can't hurt you. You can argue that it was his upbringing or his situation or his powers that made him evil, but I think they do a pretty good job of saying that, yes, Andrew's situation is shitty but he was the one who made the decision to go too far.
All in all a really good flick with something to saw that only suffers from the director not being among the tippy top of Hollywood talent.
Because, like every other government agency, most people only pay attention to the fuck ups. 99% of the CIAs resources are spent on boring and essential intelligence work. Just because a few high profile operations create historical scandals doesn't mean you should shut it down. Are you now going to say we should shut down the USPS because they lost a few letters?
What essential intel work are they doing/have they done? They didn't even have agents in Moscow until the 80s. Everyone from Johnson to Bush criticized them for having no more info than the newspaper. The biggest info cache of the Cold War was developed from info from the Brits, and the Russians knew about it the whole time.
Because, like every other government agency, most people only pay attention to the fuck ups. 99% of the CIAs resources are spent on boring and essential intelligence work. Just because a few high profile operations create historical scandals doesn't mean you should shut it down. Are you now going to say we should shut down the USPS because they lost a few letters?
What essential intel work are they doing/have they done? They didn't even have agents in Moscow until the 80s. Everyone from Johnson to Bush criticized them for having no more info than the newspaper. The biggest info cache of the Cold War was developed from info from the Brits, and the Russians knew about it the whole time.
Interesting. Doesn't change this specific argument though. The people who had access to those libraries of more than top secret information were the ones criticizing the CIA. Kissinger himself was one of the people who distrusted them and tried to cut off as many interactions between them and Nixon as he could.
Because, like every other government agency, most people only pay attention to the fuck ups. 99% of the CIAs resources are spent on boring and essential intelligence work. Just because a few high profile operations create historical scandals doesn't mean you should shut it down. Are you now going to say we should shut down the USPS because they lost a few letters?
What essential intel work are they doing/have they done? They didn't even have agents in Moscow until the 80s. Everyone from Johnson to Bush criticized them for having no more info than the newspaper. The biggest info cache of the Cold War was developed from info from the Brits, and the Russians knew about it the whole time.
Interesting. Doesn't change this specific argument though. The people who had access to those libraries of more than top secret information were the ones criticizing the CIA. Kissinger himself was one of the people who distrusted them and tried to cut off as many interactions between them and Nixon as he could.
The point is that YOU aren't in a position to criticize them.
The point is that YOU aren't in a position to criticize them.
I'm not in a position to create original criticism. I feel that I am in a position to repeat the criticism of the informed and ask why they have gone unanswered.
I am curious about this film. If you don't mind, sell it to me, please?
In the not so far flung future, Gangs rule a desimated landscape. They struggle to control the neghborhood known as the FP. Disputes are deadly. And settled by Dance Dance Revolution. JTRO embarks on a spirtual journey of redemption after his brother is killed in a dance off. Will JTRO's training and his brother's epic dance boots be enough to win back control of the FP and win the heart of his rival's girl?
I don't know why I sat down and watched it, but fuck, Chicken Little is the worst Disney Animated Feature Movie.
Something about the way that all the humor is devoid into very few and far between visual gags and how most of the characters are set between Popular, Unpopular, and Scared by Popularity. No one is really sympathetic, not to mention that the plot is set up through really tired misunderstandings. Nothing new or interesting. When the aliens are brought in, it's somewhat interesting again but it is totally toothless and anti-climatic so everything is wrapped up in one big bow. Oh, let's also mention that it has terrible music cues (worst being Steve Zahn and Joan Cusack singing "Wannabe" and "Don't Go Breakin' My Heart" during the credits. No, there's no reference or joke, they are just kind of there)
Just crap, crap CRAP. Even the animation and voice acting is bad and jarring.
It was interesting, because I wanted to compare this movie to other animated features during the year. Animated films go through weird high and low periods. 2003 - 2006 was really a low point (Granted, some fantastic movies...but only 4-5) , while 2009-2011 was mag-freakin'-nificient.
I still say that Pocohontas is the worst. Chicken Little at least has the decency to not turn the story of child abduction and statutory rape into a Romeo and Juliet.
I still say that Pocahontas is the worst. Chicken Little at least has the decency to not turn the story of child abduction and statutory rape into a Romeo and Juliet.
See...with Pocahontas, they at least put some amount of effort into it. With Chicken Little, there is a distinct lack of effort.
Pocahontas at least has two staples of Disney with pretty animation and some good songs. Even if it was 2005, the CGI in Chicken Little is really shit.
I still say that Pocohontas is the worst. Chicken Little at least has the decency to not turn the story of child abduction and statutory rape into a Romeo and Juliet.
That's funny, I don't recall pocohontas involving two teens falling in love over a weekend, getting a bunch of people killed, and then killing themselves because they couldn't manage basic communication and planning.
The only part of Chicken Little that did not make me want to kill myself to end the pain was during the credits when the characters were watching the feature film adaptation of the story that was starring Adam West, and that was only fun because it was Adam West.
I knew that Chicken Little was bad going into it, but I feel like Home on the Range crushed my spirit more. That movie actually had some things in it that made me want to like it, but everything else about that god awful film said otherwise.
The only part of Chicken Little that did not make me want to kill myself to end the pain was during the credits when the characters were watching the feature film adaptation of the story that was starring Adam West, and that was only fun because it was Adam West.
I knew that Chicken Little was bad going into it, but I feel like Home on the Range crushed my spirit more. That movie actually had some things in it that made me want to like it, but everything else about that god awful film said otherwise.
I still say that Pocahontas is the worst. Chicken Little at least has the decency to not turn the story of child abduction and statutory rape into a Romeo and Juliet.
See...with Pocahontas, they at least put some amount of effort into it. With Chicken Little, there is a distinct lack of effort.
Effort into what? Romanticizing genocide? Doesn't seem like something worth putting effort into.
I still say that Pocohontas is the worst. Chicken Little at least has the decency to not turn the story of child abduction and statutory rape into a Romeo and Juliet.
That's funny, I don't recall pocohontas involving two teens falling in love over a weekend, getting a bunch of people killed, and then killing themselves because they couldn't manage basic communication and planning.
I meant the whole lovers separated by heritage thing.
The only part of Chicken Little that did not make me want to kill myself to end the pain was during the credits when the characters were watching the feature film adaptation of the story that was starring Adam West, and that was only fun because it was Adam West.
I knew that Chicken Little was bad going into it, but I feel like Home on the Range crushed my spirit more. That movie actually had some things in it that made me want to like it, but everything else about that god awful film said otherwise.
What's odd is that, Home of the Range is definitely 2nd in terms of bad Disney movies, but as you've said, there are good things about it. I like the traditional animation, some of the score is nice and bouncy and I can really dig the voice acting. That's it...but that doesn't make it feel like a complete waste.
Chicken Little doesn't really offer...anything. Tired plot, tired jokes, tired characters, and the CGI really makes it look unsettling because the character design is so angled and cartoony. I don't even think I would have hated it as much as I do, but really what's the worst about the movie is that the characters are mean-spirited as all hell. And that trend carries on throughout the whole movie through stupidity and misunderstanding and a very strange failure to communicate. And the bad musical cues and choices just topped it all of.
I forgot to mention this a week ago, but I saw Les Miserables and I was utterly blown away by how incredible it was. I am embarrassed to say that it is the very first time I have experienced Les Miserables in any form ever. I am still somewhat bitter over the fact that I didn't experience it sooner because everything about it made me fall in love with it. I now understand why Rym names it as his favorite musical of all time, because it literally is a flawless show if this movie is anything to go on and impossible to not at least like in some way. I feel like discussing what I liked about it is somewhat redundant because it is something that the world is largely familiar with and there is a reason why it has endured for so many years. The only thing I can say are my 3 favorite numbers (I can't say song because it is sung-through): I Dreamed A Dream (I wept very hard), Master of the House (an appropriately bawdy number after all the mega-drama that preceeded it; also Sacha Baron Cohen is the win in this film), and the finale (so stirring and so beautiful; it stole all my tears).
The only big problem with this film, I'm told, is that Russell Crowe was a very bad Javert. I can't really make that call myself since I have not seen any other portrayals before this one. However, I will say that upon rewatching it (this time with two other people who had never experienced it before) that I noticed a distinct lack of passion and charisma in his performance.
That having been said, I have learned that Les Mis is getting a revival in 2014 on Broadway (I wonder why :P) and I will be there as soon as tickets are available because now I want to see it for real and see if I like it even more than this movie.
Why was Les Mis really good? What constructive criticism have you?
Not to sound like I'm pussing out when it comes to making arguments as to why I thought Les Mis was a great film, I can come up with a bunch of reasons why I thought it was good, but where are you coming from when you make that challenge? Did you not like it and/or does your opinion stand in contrast with mine?
No! I enjoyed it very much. You just spent a lot of time telling us that something was fantastic without saying why it was fantastic and what could have been done better.
I think he's just trying to get the self-proclaimed movie enthusiast to talk like...well, a movie enthusiast.
Basically.
When I talk about movies, I say something like, "The set design, use of chiarroscuro, and the character development in Skyfall were all phenomenal, but I think Bond needed further development in order to really move the series forward. It's a great movie!" Compare to, "Everything in Skyfall was amazing! See Skyfall!"
If I don't want to write a review, I just do what Jeremy does and say "[X] was great!" or "[Y] sucked!" because here my opinion carries weight since I have established my critical standards, so to speak.
No! I enjoyed it very much. You just spent a lot of time telling us that something was fantastic without saying why it was fantastic and what could have been done better.
Oh okay, I'm glad we're on the same page. I found to be incredibly well-written (both storyline and songwriting-wise), emotionally stirring and gripping, uses its era and setting to its full potential by having very beautiful cinematography to portray it, and was exceptionally well cast (with the exception of Crowe),
What I enjoyed about it most of all, however, is how it successfully pulled off the daring and conscious choice of having the actors sing live which is almost unheard as far as modern filmmaking is concerned.
EDIT: Will address the criticism in a few minutes.
I think he's just trying to get the self-proclaimed movie enthusiast to talk like...well, a movie enthusiast.
Basically.
When I talk about movies, I say something like, "The set design, use of chiarroscuro, and the character development in Skyfall were all phenomenal, but I think Bond needed further development in order to really move the series forward. It's a great movie!" Compare to, "Everything in Skyfall was amazing! See Skyfall!"
If I don't want to write a review, I just do what Jeremy does and say "[X] was great!" or "[Y] sucked!" because here my opinion carries weight since I have established my critical standards, so to speak.
That criticism is justified and I accept it. To be perfectly honest, how a movie makes me feel and the experience of the film as a whole is what I focus on when I relate to somebody about a movie that I saw. I like just about anything that has a bold vision; it is immaterial to me if a film has a glaring flaw(s) because I cut films a lot of slack if I can see that it is clear that a director had a vision that was not executed properly. The technical aspects of a film are not something I focus on most of the time when watching a movie (the notable exception being story because I will generally be very hard on something that is not particularly well-done in terms of either storytelling or story structure). The only time I'll notice is when it is clearly obvious that some aspect is sloppily or brilliantly done.
I can't pretend that that isn't how I consume and write about films as it is the only way I know how to, outside of taking a class that will expand my horizons on how to write about film more effectively (which unfortunately are not offered in my community college). Perhaps that makes me a poor reviewer, that's a definite possibility I won't deny, but I am always open to tips or advice on how to do it better if anyone is willing to take the time to show me how.
If I don't want to write a review, I just do what Jeremy does and say "[X] was great!" or "[Y] sucked!" because here my opinion carries weight since I have established my critical standards, so to speak.
The only movie I ever walked out of was W. That's only because the advertisements lead me astray into thinking it'd be entertaining, rather than a documentary of George Bush's life. I wouldn't walk out of a bad movie (and I've watched a few) because I enjoy the experience of seeing a bad movie as long as I know what it is about. Like Crank: High Voltage. That was terrible, apparently recycled some vignettes, and used all the tired, worn-out action cliches. Chev flipping me the bird while on fire at the end was a nice touch, cuz it let me know how the director really felt about me. I enjoyed seeing how horrible that movie was though, and it gave me something to talk about with my friends.
Comments
It approaches being the deconstruction of the power fantasies that drive some of the fandom (and creation) of superhero comics that Watchmen is to the superheroes themselves.
I think the found footage trope is a meaningful artistic choice and not just a gimmick, but I don't think the director was able to deliver on it to the very end.
In the first act I'm fairly certain that you only see bad things happening to Andrew when he's in front of the camera: getting threatened and beat up by his drunk father, getting hassled by bullies, getting sort of unjustly called out for being a creeper by the head cheerleader. It isn't until after he gets the powers that anything good happens to him (namely, when it's revealed that he's the best at using the powers). This then progresses to (I think) the first time he talks directly into the camera when he goes full villain.
It is unfortunate that the gag sort of fell apart at the end when they start using security cameras, and then just convenient flying iPads, to show the super brawl at the end.
I really liked the use of the Steve character. He's introduced as a foil and you think "he must be the asshole villain", and then it turns out he's a cool guy, and then it turns out that he is a foil, and a cool guy and the Andrew is actually the asshole villain.
Andrews path to evil is both relate-able but not inevitable. It is revealed that they can be basically indestructible if they want to be but when Andrew has the row with his Dad, he lashes out in rage and hurts him when he didn't have to; it isn't defending yourself if the attacker can't hurt you. You can argue that it was his upbringing or his situation or his powers that made him evil, but I think they do a pretty good job of saying that, yes, Andrew's situation is shitty but he was the one who made the decision to go too far.
All in all a really good flick with something to saw that only suffers from the director not being among the tippy top of Hollywood talent.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge
Something about the way that all the humor is devoid into very few and far between visual gags and how most of the characters are set between Popular, Unpopular, and Scared by Popularity. No one is really sympathetic, not to mention that the plot is set up through really tired misunderstandings. Nothing new or interesting. When the aliens are brought in, it's somewhat interesting again but it is totally toothless and anti-climatic so everything is wrapped up in one big bow. Oh, let's also mention that it has terrible music cues (worst being Steve Zahn and Joan Cusack singing "Wannabe" and "Don't Go Breakin' My Heart" during the credits. No, there's no reference or joke, they are just kind of there)
Just crap, crap CRAP. Even the animation and voice acting is bad and jarring.
It was interesting, because I wanted to compare this movie to other animated features during the year. Animated films go through weird high and low periods. 2003 - 2006 was really a low point (Granted, some fantastic movies...but only 4-5) , while 2009-2011 was mag-freakin'-nificient.
I knew that Chicken Little was bad going into it, but I feel like Home on the Range crushed my spirit more. That movie actually had some things in it that made me want to like it, but everything else about that god awful film said otherwise.
http://adventuresofalostboy.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/51-days-of-disney-day-45-home-on-the-range/
http://adventuresofalostboy.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/51-days-of-disney-day-46-chicken-little/
Chicken Little doesn't really offer...anything. Tired plot, tired jokes, tired characters, and the CGI really makes it look unsettling because the character design is so angled and cartoony. I don't even think I would have hated it as much as I do, but really what's the worst about the movie is that the characters are mean-spirited as all hell. And that trend carries on throughout the whole movie through stupidity and misunderstanding and a very strange failure to communicate. And the bad musical cues and choices just topped it all of.
The only big problem with this film, I'm told, is that Russell Crowe was a very bad Javert. I can't really make that call myself since I have not seen any other portrayals before this one. However, I will say that upon rewatching it (this time with two other people who had never experienced it before) that I noticed a distinct lack of passion and charisma in his performance.
That having been said, I have learned that Les Mis is getting a revival in 2014 on Broadway (I wonder why :P) and I will be there as soon as tickets are available because now I want to see it for real and see if I like it even more than this movie.
When I talk about movies, I say something like, "The set design, use of chiarroscuro, and the character development in Skyfall were all phenomenal, but I think Bond needed further development in order to really move the series forward. It's a great movie!" Compare to, "Everything in Skyfall was amazing! See Skyfall!"
If I don't want to write a review, I just do what Jeremy does and say "[X] was great!" or "[Y] sucked!" because here my opinion carries weight since I have established my critical standards, so to speak.
What I enjoyed about it most of all, however, is how it successfully pulled off the daring and conscious choice of having the actors sing live which is almost unheard as far as modern filmmaking is concerned.
EDIT: Will address the criticism in a few minutes.
I can't pretend that that isn't how I consume and write about films as it is the only way I know how to, outside of taking a class that will expand my horizons on how to write about film more effectively (which unfortunately are not offered in my community college). Perhaps that makes me a poor reviewer, that's a definite possibility I won't deny, but I am always open to tips or advice on how to do it better if anyone is willing to take the time to show me how.