MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
I am kind of tired of even people that can write more than three words per post STILL not explaining AT ALL, elaborating or telling us WHY some episode is supposedly 'the best' or some character 'the worst' or whatnot.
Don't say 'I don't know why', and if you are going to use a 'really' in a way that requires a comma, then use a comma, for crying out loud.
What's wrong with people, when no one knows even the most basic-level grammar, and when people can vomit a small wall of text and nowhere there is any actual content found that would be somewhat valuable to the point they're trying to make.
All your post says is 'I like purple cars, then I like blue cars, then I like yellow cars, then..'
Instead, you could actually explain the benefits of a purple coating to the surface of the car, maybe temperature control or how it reduces glare or whatnot. Not just say you like something and list other things you like, as if you are a toddler that has just learned to speak.
For example, we all know that red cars are stopped the most by the police for some, probably psychological reason, so there's a reason to avoid that color. But just leaving all that out and saying 'I like blue cars' is not a post anyone wants to read, it's not interesting, it has no information, why would you think anyone cares what you like purely based on what you like and nothing else?
If you don't know "why, really" (as it should be written, if you are going to stoop to that level), maybe you should stop to think, analyze, check what about the show makes you feel what and try to realize why, and THEN write your post, explaining your findings.
Anyone can just 'like' something, and we see this way too often in these boards - someone will just come to flatulate 'I like that kind of thing!11' like a child that had their first serving of ice cream, and then leave, without explaining anything.
Always EXPLAIN your opinion, or it's worthless, and it makes no sense to write it here.
So you think, yay, I loved Chrono Trigger, the sequel must be 'more of the same but expanded'.
You pretty much NEVER get that. Back to the Future II has nothing on Back to the Future. It's not expanding anything, it's just 'chasing a macguffin', a chaotic excuse for the sappy western they actually wanted to make. Sigh.
So with Chrono Cross, you are punched in the gut by one thing after another, until you can't take it anymore and you shut off the game.
There are good 'more modern' RPGs, like 'Ar Tonelico' and some of the 'Tales' games (but also awful ones - I sort of waded through many of them at one point, and found a handful of gems, lots of mediocre stuff, and a few absolute trash games), and of course the Xenosaga series (not sure about the sequels, but the first one is kinda good).
First, the musics have lost their magic. They're more 'high quality' on the technical level, more sound channels, perhaps real orchestras, same composer.. they should be better on all levels. But they're boring, slow, and every time I wake up a bit and think it sounds good, I realize it's only because it COPIES from Chrono Trigger, and evokes a memory of a better game in me.
The world is boring, the graphics are awful, the 3D is not cute like the hand-drawn sprites were, the story is uninteresting, the environment is linear and limited, when it was more open and free in Chrono Trigger, the sound effects are bland, stock and boring, .. need I go on?
The sequel is almost never as good as the original. There are a few exceptions, but Koyaanisqatsi belongs to those Chrono Triggers and Soul Caliburs of the world. There may be 'official sequels', but the magic is gone, there are no TRUE sequels that would expand upon the original while retaining its magical spirit and expertly crafted worksmanship, poignancy and message.
I would absolutely LOVE to see a PROPER sequel to Koyaanisqatsi, and if I had energy and the equipment, would want to make at least some kind of mini-version.
I do feel sad that you never get 'more of' when it comes to sequels and such.
There's no reason why a proper sequel couldn't be made in a more modern era, but I am not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.
Koyaanisqatsi is one of those brilliant flashes of lightning in a gem bottle that will probably not happen for another couple of hundred years, if ever. There are many such flashes in various forms and formats - for example, the original Soul Calibur still has magic and charm that the soulless (how ironic) sequels just can't reach. There's a sharpness to the graphics as well, compared to the all-too-blurry and effect-gimmick-heavy sequels.
The playability is also extremely 'tight', for the lack of a better word.
The problem is, all the 'flashes' have sequels, but those sequels are nothing like the original, but people being moronic masses, are completely satisfied and don't seem to understand the difference.
Another good example is the old game 'Chrono Trigger'.
This is the most beautiful RPG I have ever played, it has humor, it has story (which I usually mind in a game, because games are for playing, not for sitting through some idiot's bad script that pretends to be a story, there are actual storytelling formats out there - but in this game, I don't mind it, as it's magnificent), wonderful spells, animations, sound effects.. and of course, like many magical things in this world, it has out-of-this-world kind of beauty in almost all of its music.
Even the 'depressing winter future' music (A Ruined World, if I remember) is just hauntingly good.
I could praise that game for pages and pages and never reach a point where I have nothing more to say, but my point is, it has a sequel: Chrono Cross.
The intro is promising, it has energetic music, kinda pretty, though very different and slightly off-putting visuals, and it was a cool thing back in the day for the camera to enter someone's eye (though the effect is ruined by the BLINKING!)..
Yeah, they HAD to go with another Hopi language word, as if they were in a desperate rush to just SOMEHOW tie their political virtuesignaling trashmovie to a masterpiece, so they just HAD to have a word that also ends in 'qatsi'.
My definition is more truthful.
It makes perfect sense.
Movie 01 sucks, so maybe a viewer moronic enough to like it will also like Movie 02 that also sucks.
The algorithm might be wiser than most posters here..
The thing is, it's not even a good movie. It has none of the intuitively relatable and shocking impact that the viewer simply can't escape from the first movie.
Koyaanisqatsi forces you to look at your own life, the whole world, what people are doing to the planet, etc. in a very different way. It forces you to face uncomfortable truths while still keeping you entertained. It makes you interested in things you might not otherwise think are interesting, and so on.
Of course the amazing atmosphere of 1983 helps.
The year 1988 was not as good, atmospherically thinking - you could say, that was the year that the eighties died, because the last two years were very bad, atmosphery-wise.
But something much better could still have been made.
This movie has too much specificity - it doesn't show you general things in detail, like Koyaanisqatsi almost paradoxically manages to do. It shows you very specific things about very political message that has nothing to do with what the first movie was trying to tell us.
Now, if it had traveled all around the world and shown us all kinds of things, it wouldn't be so bad, but all this movie does is make you sad and bored about the third world. What's the point of that? The first movie's message was clear - people are in mad rush to destroy themselves and the planet, and enslaved to a high degree, and no one notices - something has got to be done about it!
This second movie simply makes another similar word and slaps it to some third world documentary thing with music that just insults the viewer instead of inspiring them.
This sequel fails for the same reason so many sequels have - the motivation was wrong. It's as if someone thought they could either make a lot of money if they made a sequel, or they thought they could virtue signal by going to Africa and filming some shots and then put some 'tribal music' or sappy crapmusic on top of that and call it a day. It's just as good, right?
Disappointing to the max.
I agree with the consensus of this thread.
Sequels rarely work, there's a reason why none of us can name more than a handful of ACTUALLY good sequels, if we are being honest.
There's something so different about crafting an original, unique masterpiece, filled with uncertainty and sweating to make it as good as possible, and about the philosophy of 'oh, it was a success, let's crank out another one to make even more money!'-kind of attitude and thinking.
I realize my views on movies and sequels, trilogies and such do not align very well with general consensus - Back to the Future, The Matrix, Alien, The Terminator - in my opinion, those are standalone movies, and whatever came after, is lackluster at best, and coherency-destroying at worst.
"I appreciate the content of Pow in the same way as Koy"
I don't understand what you mean. Could you please elaborate? You appreciate the content? What?
Also, can't you type the actual names of the movies, do you have something against the names Powaqqatsi and Koyaanisqatsi?
What do you mean you appreciate it the same WAY? In what way? Are there multiple ways to appreciate... content? What do you mean by 'content'?
I have so many questions about this baffling statement.. and only now I noticed it was written about 18 years ago, so maybe never mind, you probably don't even remember what you meant.
As a sidenote, does John Hughs have a house-fetish? All the houses he shows in his movies seem to be similar, or at least ridiculously luxorious.. Home Alone, Planes, Trains and Automobiles and some other movies seem to have almost the same, exact house. As if most families live like that..
Why can't we ever see an apartment family in bad part of town or something?
John Candy is charismatic in his own way, but he can't pull off the 'dad-role' that the family organically respects and submits to. Will-wise, I mean.
This kind of dad wouldn't ever have to raise their voice or be angry, and they could be very playful, loving, caring and understanding. But when the family tests him, he puts his foot down in a way that convinces everyone - just like the families in Supernanny learn to do.
Uncle Buck is NOT that character, and John Candy could not pull it off, even if he were. Of course, even if he could, it would just be boring to watch, as we love to see him as the lovable goofball he played so well in Planes, Trains and Automobiles.
I want to love this movie so much, but it has many of the problems of a typical Hughes romp - some scenes are too serious, others too goofy, and it's hard to juggle between the different tones of this movie. You are not even sure if you are supposed to laugh sometimes, or think Buck should be in a mental hospital.
You always know what to feel in Planes, Trains and Automobiles, though. It has its sappy, groan-inducing syrapy moments, but at least they are contrasted with lots of amazing comedy.
I guess I can never fully understand Hughs' thinking or messages, but I also can never quite put my finger on what this Uncle Buck character is supposed to be. Is he supposed to be a good family man, a stern defender of people, a funny, clumsy, awkward goofball, or someone you can depend on, etc..?
It's like taking the idea of Mary Poppins, then trying to mix it with Del Griffith and the guard from National Lampoon's Vacation, then make him do crazy stuff (scaring the boyfriend) instead of proper, honest, good parenting..
..and it just doesn't work. If it wasn't for Kevin McCallister (let's face it, Macalay never had a more famous role, and that's the character he's playing even in this movie for all intents and porpoises), there would be nothing much about this movie you could recommend to anyone.
Your comment sucks more than any movie ever has. Please learn the following things before posting anything anywhere again:
- punctuation
- grammar
- sentence structure
- topic writing
- avoiding low-brow expressions
- capitalization
It's pretty miraculous to express stupidity SO efficiently with such a short post and such a ridiculous, yet typical topic, then not even back up your erroneous and ignorance-based wrong opinion in any way. Congratulations on that!
If you want to be taken seriously, though, I recommend you learn how to actually write sentences in english, first.
In any case, this movie doesn't 'suck', as you so childishly put it, but it's not exactly the cream of the crop, either.
These movies are basically harmless timewasters that you can pop in when there's nothing to do. They are entirely forgettable, and bettered by other movies in all possible ways. They're 'good', as in 'slightly above mediocre in a sea of all kinds of movies', so they basically drown in mediocrity and absolutely sink below excellent movies.
Hong Kong movies have better stunts, action and fight scenes. Classic western movies have better stories that are also told better, more intensity, more drama, more and better twists, and more interesting story structure and coherence. Comedy movies have better jokes, more fun and edgy humor, and so on.
So these movies don't offer anything you haven't seen done better in other movies quite a lot, but they don't completely drop the ball, either.
They're like 'lackluster version' of better things you have seen. Old Jackie Chan Hong Kong movies are much better in action and fight scenes, let alone stunts. Western comedies are way funnier. Proper thriller movies are more interesting to watch, and proper mystery movies have better mysteries and told better.
So what's left is basically Jackie's and Chris's charisma to enjoy, and even those can be enjoyed in other movies as well.
Cynthia Khan has good 'female charisma' as well.
Neither movie is as good or daring as Jackie's and other people's Hong Kong movies, though, so the whole debate is kind of irrelevant anyway.
Just watch the best Cynthia Khan movies to see a really cool female action hero that can HONESTLY be said to be strong, brave and amazingly cool. She's basically the female equivalent to Jackie Chan, when it comes to exciting fights, although she doesn't do as many or as interesting stunts (not that she even does her own stunts or all fight moves, either).
There are also interesting Moon Lee movies I would wholeheartedly recommend to any Kung Fu/Jackie/Rush Hour-fans, not to mention some Michelle Yeoh stuff.
All in all, although the sequel is vastly and objectively superior to the first movie, both movies are lackluster when compared to the best Hong Kong movies that don't suffer from the hollyweird limitations and crazy 'rules'.
The problem with these movies is that they're not QUITE 'Kung Fu' enough to be on par with the Hong Kong stuff, but their stories and structures are also not QUITE on par with 'really good movies', their twists are not all that interesting, and so on.
So although they do deserve to exist as harmless popcorn fun, they don't quite reach the elevated status of most other good movies on pretty much any level. Jackie has been in better movies, so has Chris. Better musics/stories/atmospheres/ideas exist, better action exists, better 'Hong Kong' stuff exists, better stunts exist and so on and so forth.
These movies fall inbetween the cracks of better movies on all sides, on all levels, and in all possible ways, even comedy-wise (there are better comedies).
If you watch some 1980s classic movies, then the best Jackie Chan and Cynthia Chan Hong Kong-movies, then the best comedies, like 'Liar, Liar (1997)', and maybe a couple of the better action movies, Rush Hour movies do not impress on any level too much.
As something to watch to pass the time, these movies are 'fine'. They are not the best.
It's a good movie, but it falls short on every possible level.
The sequel actuall picks up the ball and runs, achieving the goal the first movie failed to reach.
The sequel is funnier, it has more action, less filler, more interesting and complex story, more twists, takes itself less seriously, and most importantly, has WAY more action, better quality action, more 'impressive Jackie-stunts' his Hong Kong movies are famous for, and so on.
There are some bad sides, as in 'a woman can't take a punch from a man' (though in Hong Kong, they can, so go figure), 'a good guy can't defeat a bad guy, so a random accident has to do it for him' (the axe that hits the antagonist woman), and all the typical misandristic 'men are cannon-fodder, women are precious, so you shouldn't hit a womblahblah'-stuff - when are we going to get true equality?
Oh, that's right, old Hong Kong movies RESPECTED women more, because women in those movies actually TAKE PUNCHES AND KICKS TO THE FACE from men and women (as do men). That is EQUALITY, and that makes a strong female character. Most Hong Kong female characters are way stronger and braver than anything hollyweird has pretty much ever shown us, especially in modern times.
(Don't talk to me about Ripley, by the way, because they circumvent this 'women can't take punches from men' problem by making the antagonists 'alien creatures' - what a cop-out!)
This sequel to Rush Hour is OBJECTIVELY, on all possible levels, better than Rush Hour was. The first movie does have some good and cool action scenes, but they're short, and you have to basically wait in boredom to get to them, and the ending is a bit anti-climactic.
The Rush Hour movies are essentially just 'fun popcorn flicks' that don't mean much, but as such, they work really well. The sequel does showcase both Jackie's and Chris's talents much better than the first movie - there's just more everything good, and less everything bad about this sequel.
Most posts in this forum are much better than yours.
Sincerely, why would anyone write a 'controversional opinion', and yet start it with a number instead of actual words, use bad grammar, use a period where not needed (the topic should never have a period, unless we're talking about periods), the statement is an unfinished sentence anyway (as in 'better than what'?), and the next insult to any regular human being that has eyes and can read a post, your post is ridiculously tiny.
Not to mention your all-lowercase, really childish and ridiculous name (no offence), and finally..
..the final insult... you don't explain your 'point' at all.
Now, I am willing to at least defend and explain my points, no matter how much you might disagree with them, but you just basically spew a couple of insignifigant almost-words (you should know that you are not supposed to use numbers for words unless the numbers are really big - with small numbers, you actually WRITE them instead of just using the numbers - how lazy can you get?) and think you accomplished something. Sigh.
As far as to the actual topic, let's think about it.
The first movie is good, but has a lot of boring filler. It's based on the most clichéic storyline ever imagined - damsel in distress that our hero must rescue. Yawn.
The antagonist is also OBVIOUS almost from the get-go, so the attempted 'mystery' fails miserably. It also has many annoyances, like Jackie and Chris PRETENDING to eat, instead of ACTUALLY eating (how hard is it to eat on camera? Just look at Brad Pitt in pretty much ANY movie..)
The action scenes are lackluster, the humor is not as good, the bad guys are more cartoony, and yet the movie takes itself a bit too seriously. It's like taking all the bad sides of Jackie's Hong Kong movies, then combining them with all the bad sides of Jackie's Hollywood movies and adding a dash of Chris Tucker to the mix, plus an annoying kid actor and there's your movie.
" They will be called to a far away land "
I think that's 'faraway land', or maybe even 'far-away land'..
In any case, there can't BE a 'far away/faraway/far-away land', because the planet is round, and all immortals are free to travel anywhere they wish, and most have traveled extensively. Let's say every single one of them is in a different place when that happens, then by necessity, some people are farther away from the 'land' (whatever this means) than others, and the probability is pretty high that some are standing right next to it, on it, or at least very NEAR it. So for them, it would be 'near-away land'.
I mean, there's no such thing as 'a land that is far away' in any absolute sense. 'Far' is not an absolute thing, but relative. Iceland is far away from Japan, but Texas is near Mexico. Yet Mexico would be far away from Moscow, and so on. So if it happens in Texas, and Immortal Sakamoto is in Mexico, and Immortal Fjordenstein is in Norway, does it happen in a 'far-away land' or not?
This ludicrously nonsensical term fits this movie very well, of course, because the rest of the movie makes about as much sense as that term itself. Unless they are talking about another planet or the moon, there IS no absolute 'far-away land'.
I don't mind awfulness, I just don't like lazy writing that not only doesn't make any sense, but constructs a story that avoids any explanation so it almost looks like it doesn't even have to make any sense. It's like a child just making things up as they go, without a care in the world about making some kind of logical consistency to it all, or some kind of explanation to at least some of the events.
It's easy to write this kind of thing where nothing is explained, so nothing has to make any sense. Just make 'fantastic things happen', create a flimsy set of overly-repeated pseudo-rules without explanations as to why, and you have yourself an overrated, gimmick-filled, badly acted blob of cheese that the masses will, of course, gobble up, no questions asked.
Well, I like asking questions.. especially the ones these movies try so hard to avoid answering. The least they could do is explain things, but instead, they just tell things - and that's boring.
Think how amazing this movie could be, if everything made sense and everything was satisfactorily explained!
Yeh, I have kinda covered almost all of your points (and more), but a good theory anyway.
But these 'youtuber reactors' have NO sense of reality, no assessment ability, no understanding of how anything works.. they just watch a movie, misjudge it unfairly and then go about their superficial day where they don't have to think about anything too much.
Does it hurt the brain to actually think a LITTLE bit before saying '40 years'?
The joke is that 10 bucks a week is RIDICULOUSLY tiny amount to pay for something so MASSIVELY expensive, that he could never, EVER pay it even in ten lifetimes. THAT is the joke, not that it would take 40 years to pay it, but it would be payable. That's not funny. Jokes are EXTREME and ABSURD to be hilarious - if it was payable in 40 years, it would be more mundane and tame.
These people laugh but don't get the joke. What's wrong with their brains?
Big numbers are confusing, of course, and a youtuber can't be asked to do this kind of 'oh-so-complicated-math' and stop reacting for the 2.7 minutes it would take to use their omnipresent minicomputer's (I can't call that thing a 'phone') calculator to do this challenging task of adding some simple numbers, but come on, AT LEAST say 400 years to be in the clear, ok?
I will accept 400 years, I am not greedy! But they can't even do that.. so despair falls over my already anxiety-ridden shadow of a being I could have been.. Why are people like this? Why not at least re-think it, why don't they have a 'feel' for these things at least to the extent of 'hmm, this estimation feels wrong'?
Why can they just say that like it's nothing and go on and not realize what a ridiculous mistake they made? Are THEY trying to be absurd and funny?
Well, it's not funny. 40 years.. I can't get over that. FORTY?
Couldn't they at least, in their mind, quickly calculate 10 x 52 to realize its' 520 a year and that times forty is not gonna be even a tiny grain of sand in a big desert?
I mean, if ten years means 5200 bucks, how the heck do they think four times that becomes thirty (or -teen) MILLIONS? HOW?
Youtubers can't do math.
I was just watching another 'reaction' and when this scene popped up, these (censored) youtubers just said 'It will take him 40 years, ha ha' and went on watching without stopping to think or do math.
40 years??
REALLY?? They can't even ESTIMATE it better than THAT?
Ten bucks a week = 520 bucks a year, because there are 52 weeks in a year, right?
People just don't understand how much a MILLION is. It's just a 'big number' and that's how far people's understanding of it goes.
Completely disregarding that it's YET ANOTHER masonic number (watch movies and TV shows with this in mind - every, EVERY number is always '13', '33' or some kind of '133' or '313' variation. EVERY single number! It's always 13 years, 13 bucks, or whatever)..
.. even one million would be almost four thousand five hundred years!
HOW can these airhead bimbo 'reactors' not realize just HOW FAR OFF they were in their crappy estimation of '40 years' that they COMPLETELY THOUGHTLESSLY threw out there? WHY would you say that without realizing that 40 times 520 is a measly ~21 thousand (a bit less)?
So these people estimate 30 (or 13) million and around twenty thousand to be the same. Just how much has to be wrong in your head for you to just casually do that and not see anything wrong with it?
In these 'youtube reactors'' (I am starting to think they are the lowest people on this planet, but I have seen the 'millennials can't count 3 x 3 x 3'-videos as well, so it's starting to be a bit terrifying to live in this world) minds, around 58 thousand years and 40 years are the same.
Of course this is the problem with numbers, people are not 'naturally' or organically equipped with math, it's a logical skill you have to learn, but I am really bad at it and even I can INSTANTLY tell that 10 bucks a week is NOT gonna amount to anything close to even a million in friggin' 40 years! THAT IS THE POINT, that it's ABSURDLY unpayable with ten bucks a week.
If you watch this movie and look at Paul's determination and resourcefulness - after all, he does what most of us probably couldn't in his painful and scary situation, exploring the house, hatching multiple plans of getting rid of his 'jailer' and so on, the hidden knife, the pill powder, the 'celebration with poisoned wine' and so on and so forth..
...it's really NOT hard to imagine him getting away from that cabin all the way to safety.
I mean, his biggest obstacle was his 'biggest fan' - once Annie is gone, he has no pressing urgency, he has no humongous obstacle to overcome, no longer someone trying to poison/drug him and so on.
Someone will come to look for the Sheriff, the helicopter pilot would see Sheriff's car, anyone talking to people in the village would soon realize where the Sheriff went AND SO ON.
Multiple people have already mentioned Buster's car that probably has all kinds of police equipment in it, including a CB radio, etc.
There are also GUNS in the house, and guns are ridiculously - I mean, AMAZINGLY ridiculously - loud. All he'd have to do is shoot a gun outside, and people would come to see what is going on, and see Sheriff's car and so on.
The number one should definitely not be an issue whatsoever - once Annie is gone, with Paul's resourcefulness and determination alone, even if he can't use his legs, he would've found multiple ways to get to safety, even if it takes him a couple of days.
You CAN drive a car without using your legs, by the way, you can use a broom taped to your leg or whatnot, you can at least use the horn of that car to honk for help if nothing else, then there are things like 'cruise control' and 'Automatic Transmission' and so on. He wouldn't have to drive far anyway, it would be enough for someone to see the Sheriff's car and realize all is not well.
As far as the second point, I don't even understand why that would be an issue, and what you mean by 'final scare' - Paul WAS obviously scared or unnerved anyway
A Bug's Life is tedious, predictable, boring, ugly and unfunny.
This movie has a lot of genius to it, and it is also more poignant, and makes people think, even if a little bit.
However, I would like to add a third, brilliant movie into the mix - 'AntZ'.
I think it's 'Ant Z', meaning 'The Ant named Z', but because 'Z' is almost 'S', it works as a plural for 'Ant', so it can also be read as 'Ants'.
I think 'AntZ' flows better, its Rambo parody is top notch, and its atmosphere is intense and exciting. It also has an amazing political poignancy and the references are very well done. It's also one of the first rendered movies that showed what computers can do, and it does the Koyaanisqatsi-like thing of showing us our world from a very different perspective, so when a plastic bag becomes a force field, and a magnifying glass your typical, believable UFO, you can't help rolling over with laughter.
So, 'A Bug's Life' is a miserable mess I'd rather not watch again, Chicken Run is a fema-fascist, nonsensical, but intense experience with a lot of poignancy that may affect people positively and open them to think about what we consider 'normal' in this crazy world, 'AntZ' tops both with its political parodying with Woody Allen's perfect neurosis and also a very signifigant, important message about how governments of the world treat people and label and stigmatise us and if you don't fit the norm, you are seen as weirdo that has to be gotten rid of.
So, neither, I choose 'AntZ'.