|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 326 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 165 of 326:
| 
Jun 4 02:54 UTC 2000 |
Rather, I think at some point the director/editor makes a decision to include
something, or drop something else, because of the "cool factor" rather than
to advance the story.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 166 of 326:
|
Jun 4 03:51 UTC 2000 |
There are certainly elements like that in M:I2. For example the only
explanation for the otherwise inexplicable birds fluttering around the
bio-tech facility is that director John Woo has some gratuitous fixation
involving fluttering birds (if you have the temerity to doubt me, punish
yourself by watching his previous Hollywood movie, "Face Off", which will
amply illustrate Woo's pigeon fetish..)
I think, though, that MI:2's problems go much deeper than an expository
scene or two left on the [literal or metaphorical] cutting-room floor.
Essentially the supposedly super-comptetent characters just make puzzlingly
dumb decisions, decisions which are so obviously stupid, even at the time,
that the viewer is jolted out of the story. They're like big drum crashes
out of rhythm.. I can't conceive of any scenes or chapters that might've
been left out that would explain why the characters choose to act as they do.
At the same time, though, I probably *could* come up with reasons for them
to engage in all of same motorcycle chases, rope stunts, and gun fights
they get into. Those reasons would be pretty contrived, but they'd at least
keep things moving along..
--
I don't want to beat this to death. Nor do I want to single out M:I2,
the problems I'm describing are sadly not unique to this particular film.
I just wonder: do even action-movie audiences *really* care so little
about plot? Maybe they do -- certainly if there's one thing I'd count
on the studios to get right it'd be to understand as much as possible
about what brings people into movies, and a zillion dollars of action
blockbuster earnings at the box office certainly suggests they know what
they're doing. But maybe, just maybe, there's room for both a vestigial
plot *and* the usual complement of explosions, harrowing aerobatic stunts,
and kung fu..
(yeah, I know.. that *does* sound pretty farfetched..)
|
krj
|
|
response 167 of 326:
|
Jun 4 04:03 UTC 2000 |
Heh. I suppose I should mention that I had to whisper to Leslie tonight:
"Stop thinking!" We were watching "Shanghai Noon" at the time...
we both thought it was a lot of fun, just don't analyze the plot
too much.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 168 of 326:
|
Jun 4 04:56 UTC 2000 |
I actually thought about following up #166 with a note clarifying that
contrary to what one might guess from my recent writings in this item
I often really enjoy the totally off-the-wall "plots" of Chinese action
movies, perhaps because they rarely even pretend to make sense. Maybe
what I object to is when a movie tries to act like it should make sense
and simply fails completely..
|
senna
|
|
response 169 of 326:
|
Jun 4 07:25 UTC 2000 |
I concur. Action flicks that attempt to take themselves seriously and fail
to be serious are painful to watch. Action movies, or anything else, that
looks at itself with a bit of an amused eye, are much more watchable.
|
iggy
|
|
response 170 of 326:
|
Jun 4 12:03 UTC 2000 |
i like jackie chan movies...
do they show all the out t akes at the end of shanghi noon?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 171 of 326:
|
Jun 4 13:31 UTC 2000 |
They show several.
|
ric
|
|
response 172 of 326:
|
Jun 4 15:21 UTC 2000 |
Was that "final" scene really a biotech facility? I don't think so. It
looked like some kind of old castle that they chose as a meeting place. The
pigeons would not be exactly out of place there.
|
void
|
|
response 173 of 326:
|
Jun 4 17:23 UTC 2000 |
i gave up on action movies years ago because they have no plots.
the last one i saw (was dragged to, having nothing better to do with
my $7.50 that day) was "true lies." yuk. nobody could understand why
i hated it. then when i explained that i prefer movies with
intelligible plots and a cast capable of *ACTING*, the people i was
with were incredulous. apparently, action movies are a genre whose
subtleties, if there are any, i am incapable of grasping. or maybe
it's just that i can recognize the difference between suspension of
disbelief and a plot which lacks internal consistency.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 174 of 326:
|
Jun 4 23:20 UTC 2000 |
re #172: I'm not sure how many underground castles Australia has, but
the number of them with DNA-analysis tools must be pretty low, wouldn't
you think?
|
mdw
|
|
response 175 of 326:
|
Jun 4 23:32 UTC 2000 |
Does Australia have *any* castles (above or below ground?)
|
spooked
|
|
response 176 of 326:
|
Jun 4 23:52 UTC 2000 |
No idea - it's top secret I imagine (=
|
ric
|
|
response 177 of 326:
|
Jun 5 01:38 UTC 2000 |
They looked like they were in some kind of dungeon, too me, with "portable"
DNS-analysis tools. Didn't you notice that the tool they used was sitting
on a fairly plain looking table and there was no other "equipment" in the room
nor any noticeable storage cupboards or anything like that.
I contest that it was not any kind of Biotech facility.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 178 of 326:
|
Jun 5 02:26 UTC 2000 |
I'm going to have to concede your point -- it was not a biotech facility..
My guess is that it was a movie set, and not a particularly thoroughly
thought-out one..
Other things I'd like to know: what were all of those gas cylinders
doing there? Were they there just in case Tom Cruise or McGyver launched
a commando raid on the place?
And what is the facility used for when it's not hosting negotiations with
bio-weapon terrorists? It seems like the personnel costs in security
alone would make it a white elephant if you weren't storing some sort of
bio-weapon or similarly crucial object there. Certainly the corporation
might've been better advised to use some of those security to protect their
main facilities, which both the M:I team *and* the villains had simply
waltzed into not 24 hours before.. But then it's probably pretty hard to
staff a place with the sort of ask-no-questions security guards who will
give up their lives to protect the property of a company that's getting
ready to kill millions of their fellow countrymen, especially in today's
hot job market..
;-p
|
jazz
|
|
response 179 of 326:
|
Jun 5 03:22 UTC 2000 |
Dru, I hated "True Lies" too, and, if I'm reading what you wrote
correctly, we hated it for the same reasons. I'm not really sure what the
difference is between a good mindless action film and a bad mindless action
film - it could be the sensible kinetic and visual language behind a good
mindless action film which is enough to defray the logical understanding of
the rational language of the plot until after it's over, or it could just be
that it's pretty and the soundtrack matches the action of the characters, to
lull the audience into a trance.
|
senna
|
|
response 180 of 326:
|
Jun 5 05:18 UTC 2000 |
I don't particularly like True Lies. They put Arnold into a movie, added
pyrotechnics, and expected it to work. It didn't, so they included Jamie Lee
Curtis and lingerie. Apparently, deadlines prevented them from making it
good...
|
mcnally
|
|
response 181 of 326:
|
Jun 5 05:31 UTC 2000 |
I actually liked "True Lies" except for the creepily sadistic part where
Arnold is psychologically torturing Jamie Lee.. But that was enough to
kill the pacing of the movie and introduce issues that distracted greatly
from the entertainment value of seeing things get "blowed up real good."
|
goose
|
|
response 182 of 326:
|
Jun 5 15:25 UTC 2000 |
Mike, in MI:2 they mentioned that the castle in question was a storage
facility.
IFO also liked "True Lies" despite my aversion to Arnold.
|
ric
|
|
response 183 of 326:
|
Jun 5 17:52 UTC 2000 |
I liked True Lies myself.
When we went down to the keys a few years back, I saw the "bridge" that was
blown up. They actually did blow up that bridge. Of course, it had been
replaced by a new bridge which was magically erased from the shots.
|
jep
|
|
response 184 of 326:
|
Jun 5 18:43 UTC 2000 |
We rented "Galaxy Quest" over the weekend. I didn't like it much. Tim
Allen did a pretty good impression of William Shatner as a has-been
actor touring conventions for his long-dead science fiction show. The
action of the movie was pretty cheesy, though.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 185 of 326:
|
Jun 5 21:08 UTC 2000 |
I think it was... no... I KNOW it was supposed to be horribly cheesy.
<grins> Now if they had tried to be serious I don't think I would have
liked it... but this was a spoof of several different things, it was
intended to drip with cheese.
|
aruba
|
|
response 186 of 326:
|
Jun 6 02:53 UTC 2000 |
Re #184: John, I suspect Galaxy Quest may be the kind of comedy that
benefits greatly from an audience. I saw it in a theater and loved it.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 187 of 326:
|
Jun 6 03:00 UTC 2000 |
I wouldn't say I "loved" it, but I enjoyed it for what it was --
a light-hearted spoof of a target that's ripe for spoofing..
|
omni
|
|
response 188 of 326:
|
Jun 6 03:54 UTC 2000 |
BTW, for those of us who are dim of wit, exactly when and what movie
is Grex sponsoring? I'm thinking about attending.
|
remmers
|
|
response 189 of 326:
|
Jun 6 14:05 UTC 2000 |
"Galaxy Quest". Top of the Park, Sunday, July 9.
|
