professor smartypants

Comments from professor smartypants

Oh come on everyone. Armored is infinitely more ridiculous. Notice how the trailer assumes that armored car drivers are universally known as badasses,like driving an armored car is equivalent to being in a SWAT team or the mafia or a gourmet kitchen. But in reality they're just drivers. Fundamentally they have pretty shitty jobs. The concept is about makes about as much sense as "Lawrence Fishburne is a teller in a bank which holds more than A MILLION dollars." It's like hollywood ran out of groups of cool people doing a really hard job, and now they have to just bullshit us by pretending that boring tasks are glamorous.
+2 |
September 3, 2009 on It Is Difficult To Decide Which Of These Two Movies Has A Dumber Plot Conceit
Before I begin, I swear to God I'm not trolling: I don't see the problem with Soulja Boy. Clearly he's no musical genius, but I kind of his admire to self-produce a single, create a dance craze to accompany it, and promote himself. Soulja Boy is a DIY success story, and I don't wanna shit all over that. And yeah, Crank That is a little annoying, it's also pretty infectious (and a hell of a lot less annoying then this year's lame excuses for summer jams). I get the complaint that Soulja Boy-style disposable "ringtone" rap diminishes hip hop's power as a tool of empowerment, but he's no worse Master P or a whole slew of other shitty mid-90s rappers. And if we have to hate on shitty, commercial rap, why can't we go after people like The Black Eyed Peas who lack Soulja Boy's punk credibility. Also best wishes to Lyric.
+3 |
August 28, 2009 on Let’s Paint, Exercise, And Make Raps On Our Desks
Alright, I thought this movie was pretty brilliant (and also super academic) and I want to see if anyone buys my interpretation: Basically, it's not a movie about World War II. It's entirely about movies and how film affects and distorts the way we look pretty much everything (but violence and justice especially). So the intended effect of the movie is go get the viewer cheering the heroes torture and slaughter Nazis, and then on the way home question whether we should be cheering at really over the top violence. It's like Funny Games, but less judgmental. And there are all these other situations that explore how characters can't really distinguish between life and the movies: how the British send a film expert to France as a spy, or how Zoller assumes he can win over Shoshanna by acting like a romantic comedy hero, or how Hitler sees a film premier as this really pivotal moment. So the ultimate effect of the movie is to set up all these fantasies and subvert the shit out of them. And then the movie explores how film acts as social glue (in the bar scene where the spy's cover is basically his knowledge of film) or as a weapon (really obvious) or a deadening influence (the Nazis don't hear all the gunshots because the movie they're watching has a bunch of gunshots). So the message of the movie is "here are your fantasies. how do you feel about them?" Now I was talking this over with a friend and he sez based on interviews he's read that Tarantino seems to believe that extreme retributive violence is morally fine, and so the message I'm seeing isn't intentional. But even then the movie's still an interesting study of power fantasies, just an unintentional one. Does anyone buy my theory?
+39 |
August 24, 2009 on The Videogum Movie Club: Inglourious Basterds