|
marblize posted:Was it actually dark or were romcom crowds just upset that it indeed ended in its namesake? It probably didn't help that the Vince Vaughn film immediately before it was Wedding Crashers, a movie so light hearted it made so skeezy a concept appealing to people. The Break Up was a big shift from that and I imagine people were expecting another Wedding Crashers in terms of tone.
|
# ? Sep 13, 2015 23:10 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 08:24 |
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:But he's James Bond! He's a ringer! He does his thing then gets killed. I actually felt like his role drew a lot from his role in The Matador. well why not posted:There were a lot of advertisements that kind of explained the premise where I was, unfortunately. Seeing that movie with no clue of what it is would be an amazing experience. It'll be interesting to see what the next generation of kids think of that - with the hype subsided does The Matrix hold up? I watched it recently and it's still a great film, but I do wonder how it'll be received in the future. Fun fact: The word 'Internet' is not present in the script. I remember talking to my college undergrad students about The Matrix a year or two ago and most of them hadn't seen it.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 00:45 |
|
The Matador is a better fit there yeah.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 01:26 |
|
Is No Escape's marketing misleading about its "white people stuck in a forrrrreign conflict!!!" premise? Is it remotely subversive regarding that?
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 03:50 |
|
Maluco Marinero posted:It probably didn't help that the Vince Vaughn film immediately before it was Wedding Crashers, a movie so light hearted it made so skeezy a concept appealing to people. Goddamn I hated Wedding Crashers. Only good parts were Walken and Ferrell.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 06:11 |
|
marblize posted:Is No Escape's marketing misleading about its "white people stuck in a forrrrreign conflict!!!" premise? Is it remotely subversive regarding that? If by subversive you mean "is the film not about that?" then no.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 15:42 |
|
marblize posted:Is No Escape's marketing misleading about its "white people stuck in a forrrrreign conflict!!!" premise? Is it remotely subversive regarding that? The only thing slightly misleading is that narratively he, specifically, is the target of a manhunt. It's an anti western coup but the vast majority of deaths are locals. But they do have someone on a loudspeaker trolling him and his family. So you might think it's a "kill the whites" thing but it's more like "kill lots but especially Phillip". It's not bad for what it is and Lake Bell is much better than Owen Wilson.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 15:51 |
|
Did you also get the impression that it started life as a found footage movie?
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 15:55 |
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:If by subversive you mean "is the film not about that?" then no. I meant more "does the movie acknowledge and undermine the xenophobic tropes typical of the genre?" but the snark is appreciated. ^^Thank. Will probably moviepass it. marblize fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Sep 14, 2015 |
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:52 |
|
I wasn't being snarky, I was asking "what is meant by subversive?"
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:54 |
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I wasn't being snarky, I was asking "what is meant by subversive?" Oh, sorry! Yeah I just mean sometimes these movies seem like either 'look at the evil foreigners' or 'look at these rich white people stuck in a tsunami that's devastating local populations' and I had hopes that it might throw some sort of curveball into that expectation, though maybe that expectation of mine is generally unfair, who knows
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:58 |
|
I think it's totally fair to think that. I found that the film both indulged the cliches while subtly (visually) damning the protagonists every chance it got, which was the most clever but unsatisfying part of the film. It's very difficult for a film like that to have a "fair" point of view, but I enjoy seeing them try.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 17:06 |
|
And there was a part near the end when Brosnan goes off on a speech about how neoliberalism fucks over the Third World and the coup was directly a result of Owen Wilson's company taking over the country's water supply and how the rebels are just doing what they're doing to protect their own kids, but it's literally just that one scene, it's immediately undercut by a joke about eating a dog, and the rest of the movie is right back to the evil Asian mob with nothing else on that revelation coming up again. Although it is funny to think that (minor spoilers for the end if anyone cares) the Vietnamese army saves them at the end.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 22:26 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 08:24 |
|
That was a nice "twist" ending.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 23:01 |