algroth

They were always awful, far as I'm concerned.

HBO? I'm willing to consider it being good. Not a guarantee of quality anymore. Jeremy Irons though. HBO isn't a guarantee of quality anymore but Jeremy Irons is? Mind you, I'm saying this as a Jeremy Irons fan.

I can see the film's aesthetic sharing the aesthetic genealogy you mention there, but I think it's a lot more detached from the particular reference you use above. The feel is much closer to that of modern first-account war documentary footage the likes of Restrepo and so on, blending also a heavy use of optoelectronics to further focalize the narrative on the raid squad. The lighting is largely naturalistic but contrary to Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down for example, the conditions surrounding these missions lend to far darker, more abstract results as often the scenes descend into sheer untouched darkness of night. Despite their being some thread whereby you can link Saving Private Ryan to Traffic to Syriana to this, I do think the feel and look is overall very different. I can see this. Oddly enough Fraser's worked on Mary Magdalene most recently though I haven't seen that and don't really plan to. Regardless, I think that if that's the look to go to then, as you say above, a Lubezki or in my opinion a Lukasz Zal for example would likely be better candidates as well. But, again, I trust Villeneuve in this regard.

I'm thinking the connection between Sicario and Zero Dark Thirty more based on their respective climaxes than the rest of the films - their combination of different formats and processes for a more immersive, realistic, hyper-focalized take on the respective raid sequences. I see the Abbottabad raid all over Sicario, more so than any of the war films.

I love literally every one of the casting decisions made so far. Only thing I wish was Roger Deakins was attached to this. The current cinematographer isn't bad himself, but he's no Deakins. Grieg Fraser is not at all a bad choice, however. Relative to Deakins, both seem to have pretty similar stengths to my eyes, from a very decent classical eye to an interest in the combination of different formats to create new starker images and so on. Much as I suspect Fraser's work in Rogue One for example was heavily Deakins-inspired (and also one of the best-looking Star Wars films so far, after Empire and maybe The Last Jedi), I don't doubt for a moment that Deakins looked to Zero Dark Thirty as a reference for his work in Sicario. On top of that Villeneuve's also worked with another cinematographer for Arrival and that looked no less impressive relative to his other work, so I think it's all in good hands.

I might give it a try, though I tend to prefer RTwP. Regardless the option is very welcome.

The Ringer made a series of articles all through last year on many of the landmark games of 1998. I don't know which I'd consider the best or most important year for videogames, but they make a pretty solid case for it: https://www.theringer.com/2018/8/29/17795406/1998-the-best-year-ever-for-video-games

2018 was the worst year for videogames ever... name something aside spiderman, rimwold or smash bros ultimate that was awesome released that year Red Dead Redemption 2, God of War, Celeste, Deadfire, Into the Breach, Dead Cells, Octopath Traveller, The Red Strings Club, Return of the Obra Dinn...

Reminds me of:

Activision Blizzard fired its CFO: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/31/activision-blizzard-plans-to-fire-its-cfo-for-an-unspecified-cause.html

It's 2019. Greetings from Neo-Tokyo, and happy new year.

[Youtube] Merry Christmas guys

I cannot 100% vouch for her interpretation because, again, I'd really need to rewatch the film to do so. However she does support her claims with ample references to scenes and context, which you do not despite claiming she's omitting stuff, and given your interpretation above I am somewhat more trusting of her take instead. Also because the talk of a decaying society and a "golden age" of the past does sound very close to the idealized ambiguous past used to motivate the kind of fear and indignation she references in her article. Likewise I don't think she condoned the violence of the 1992 riots at any point either (the opening paragraph sounds as a condemnation more than anything, focusing on the damages opposite to any potential change or demonstration that may have arisen from them), referred to them more as context surrounding the film's production and release. I wouldn't assume to know her thoughts of Do the Right Thing considering she doesn't even reference the film in the article.

Also I'll add that it's been fifteen years at least since I last saw the film so I cannot argue about it down to the tiniest details as I cannot remember most of them either. But... This is a pretty damn good argument that goes to show too how even the protagonist's justifications may not be all that valid: https://www.laweekly.com/film/falling-down-25th-anniversary-michael-douglas-was-the-villain-8164453

Love the movie, hate the ending. It always felt forced, as in he needs to be a bad guy because otherwise the film would be accused of promoting violence, even though for most of it he is a sympathetic character. The ending isn't the thing making him a bad guy. His anger felt justified to me, maybe that's what made him sympathetic. The issue isn't the justification or lack thereof, but the way in which he responds to those triggers. It's kind of what makes a villain a sympathetic villain: relatable motivations to justify questionable deeds. So you never had enough bull**** to run your cup over? You never yelled at a telemarketer for bothering you after a hard day, or did something in the like? Either you should get yourself nominated for sainthood or get yourself some self awareness, cause I'm pretty sure everyone gets fed up and vents. Sometimes at the expense of someone. If venting was the worst Michael Douglas did throughout the film, sure (kinda? It's not like if I did something in the past, I immediately consider it to be the right thing or justified). But it's not, far from it. Maybe is generational or cultural difference but I do like to favor individual's right over upholding the social contract, specially when you run into a situation where the scale is heavily tipped in favor of society. That's fine and I do too, but it doesn't make every individual's personal struggle against the system invariably righteous in turn either. That an individual becomes "fed up" with society doesn't make their violent response - which in this case goes all the way to threatening people at gunpoint, harming them, and wantonly destroying other people's property - the right way to go about such a thing. If we talk about individual's rights, then by the particular ways Douglas' character rebels against the system he completely tramples over the rights of several individuals he meets from there on.

Love the movie, hate the ending. It always felt forced, as in he needs to be a bad guy because otherwise the film would be accused of promoting violence, even though for most of it he is a sympathetic character. The ending isn't the thing making him a bad guy. His anger felt justified to me, maybe that's what made him sympathetic. The issue isn't the justification or lack thereof, but the way in which he responds to those triggers. It's kind of what makes a villain a sympathetic villain: relatable motivations to justify questionable deeds. So you never had enough bull**** to run your cup over? You never yelled at a telemarketer for bothering you after a hard day, or did something in the like? Either you should get yourself nominated for sainthood or get yourself some self awareness, cause I'm pretty sure everyone gets fed up and vents. Sometimes at the expense of someone. If venting was the worst Michael Douglas did throughout the film, sure (kinda? It's not like if I did something in the past, I immediately consider it to be the right thing or justified). But it's not, far from it.

Love the movie, hate the ending. It always felt forced, as in he needs to be a bad guy because otherwise the film would be accused of promoting violence, even though for most of it he is a sympathetic character. The ending isn't the thing making him a bad guy. His anger felt justified to me, maybe that's what made him sympathetic. The issue isn't the justification or lack thereof, but the way in which he responds to those triggers. It's kind of what makes a villain a sympathetic villain: relatable motivations to justify questionable deeds.

To keep it rolling...

For some newer FSOL...

Neat film. Well, films, if we also count Blade Runner 2047 which is sampled rather heavily by that beat. That's some pretty Future Sound of London-sounding piece, so that's cool.

Just posting this before the internet implodes from a combination of RLM and cat videos.