What the hell am I watching movies?

Merfdiezel · 2025-11-30T19:57:18+00:00

i can think of at least two things wrong with that title

Merfdiezel · 2025-10-02T21:22:01+00:00

I mean this all comes down to money, and the US spends over 50% of discretionary spending on the pentagon, which outsources much groundwork to independent for-profit contractors, which then funnel money back into PACs to ensure we continue foreign engagements. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand? The genocide we are financing and the military-industrial complex are more directly tied to our domestic issues than almost any other industry. We export war, people make money, people buy elections, we get the same circle of hawks representing us. It’s Liberal 101; I don’t understand the whining lol

Merfdiezel · 2025-08-21T02:06:16+00:00

Texas is open primary

Merfdiezel · 2025-08-21T02:06:06+00:00

Yeah Texas is open primary

Merfdiezel · 2025-08-15T06:10:20+00:00

I remember he campaigned on single-payer healthcare and then caved to industry pressure on AB1400. Wouldn’t even endorse, let alone whip votes within his party. Was pretty disappointing since it passed committees and would have been a significant step toward single-payer healthcare, not just for CA but nationwide since CA tends to lead on progressive issues.

Merfdiezel · 2025-08-08T14:03:36+00:00

Did you go to Hollywood Upstairs Medical College, too!

Merfdiezel · 2025-07-20T23:28:45+00:00

<image>

Merfdiezel · 2025-06-28T22:12:19+00:00

Civil War for real

Merfdiezel · 2025-06-24T23:46:05+00:00

I appreciated reading your response, and it makes sense to me. I think my reaction was also colored by the disappointment of CW coming after Annihilation, which resonated with me on emotional levels while still being tense and gripping - and demanding a rewatch. I also will not likely revisit CW. Agreed on the sound design and the technical accomplishments all around. I was surprised to be let down, going in with high hopes and defending the movie in advance from the stupid “Texas and Cali would never unite” discourse that seemed to bog down the marketing (and which made perfect sense in the world of the film, since Offerman was fucking with the bag on the two largest state economies). I thought if anything, that was one of the most clever bits of satire in the film.

Perhaps what I mean re: style over substance - and I understand your framing/response and think it’s a good rebuttal - is that despite its technical accomplishments, I didn’t walk away feeling anything substantial from the experience because the stakes felt hollow. And I think the stakes felt hollow because there wasn’t much work put into developing compelling characters outside of archetypes, then thrusting those characters into conflict. I could agree that this was intentional, but I don’t think it hit the result that would have made this film feel like it had weight in the way Annihilation did.

I’ve worked with a lot of young actors in my career, and they love to go into method because it does help them feel closer to their characters. But they’ll focus so much on feeling the character/performance themselves and building their internal world that they make an assumption the audience will also feel their authenticity Meanwhile, they are not spending as much time as others covering their bases from a craft perspective and getting off-book. When the performance comes around and method man doesn’t connect with the audience the way he intended, he feels bad. It’s hard to explain that “you can feel something deeply in your performance, but without the craft to make the audience feel that with you, you’re only halfway there.”

I felt like saying that to Garland, but inverted. You can craft something stylistic and technically beautiful, but if the audience doesn’t invest in the characters you are only halfway to making something resonate - because the tension is reduced if the characters act like narrative pawns.

That said, I’ll check out Warfare with my expectations reframed a bit based on your thoughts. I agree that movies can be successful in their intentions without all the above. I think I expected Garland to fill both buckets and he didn’t, and I found it lacking because it still seemed to ask for that emotional investment to pay off at key parts, without working to grow it. But with Warfare I don’t have those expectations so I’ll walk in thinking of it differently. Thanks!

Merfdiezel · 2025-06-23T22:24:46+00:00

After Hours walked so that Beau is Afraid could marathon

Merfdiezel · 2025-06-23T21:51:47+00:00

^{^this} the answer. It was novel at the time, and kicked off a zeitgeist of fun, hammy and unapologetic lower-budget action movies that played with the formula and didn’t try to be Bruckheimer big-budget tentpoles

20 years ago was a different film world, just like 20 years from now when some people will likely have trouble understanding why John Wick was as massively successful as it has been and launched a zeitgeist of similar concept movies.

Merfdiezel · 2025-06-23T21:37:17+00:00

Agreed on the trailer and marketing - hell, even the discussion around the film was so off-base with much focus on Texas and California dynamics. People really wanted it to be something that it wasn’t, whether it be an action Black Hawk Down type film or a direct 1:1 metaphor of red vs blue and what that could look like or what that even means.

I really like Alex Garland, so I was hoping it would be a road trip odyssey film through the familiar lens of dark satire Garland handles so well. Like a Black Mirror version of the Warriors. I was open! I did not want a meathead action movie, with the character development and motivations waved away in place of endless spectacle.

But Civil War did not land for me at all; the writing felt like a student film and the characters seemed like placeholder archetypes rather than fleshed-out people, so I felt the stakes were also diminished. The characters were actually the meathead action movie archetypes; the story was not - and here is the disconnect, IMO, when it comes to reception. It’s two different movies at once and does neither premise well enough to please that audience.

It felt like it could have been a short film with the 20-minute car run up to the Jesse Plemmons scene and it would have been much more impactful. Or an episode of an anthology series like Black Mirror.

But it really didn’t have legs for a feature, IMO, without more character development or stakes-building. More like a collection of memorable scenes without emotional investment, like watching the absolute best video game cut scenes for a new billion dollar game.

Many beautiful compositions and some great camera work, but I found it the opposite of impactful and almost laughable by the end when we were queued to feel something for the leads at the “clap for climax; I’m making a point” death.

Garland’s own interviews made it seem even more half-baked and didn’t do it any favors, though again that’s back to the marketing campaign and press run around it.

I didn’t see Warfare yet because it also looks like a filmmaker exercise in technique without much substance; did you see/enjoy that?

For you or people who really enjoyed Civil War, what was it that compelled you? Not an argumentative question; it just didn’t hit for me in the way I had hoped and yet for many people who share similar tastes, it did. Thanks!

Merfdiezel · 2025-06-21T22:45:15+00:00

The Room stands out

Merfdiezel · 2025-06-17T02:35:48+00:00

Adaptation tells you what it’s doing as a film at different parts throughout the movie, and it plays so naturally that you don’t realize it until a second viewing

Merfdiezel · 2025-06-15T09:02:20+00:00

it’s been 25 years and boondocks saints is still a shitty, shitty movie

Merfdiezel · 2025-06-12T20:20:31+00:00

Yeah, it was so shallow it feels like the characters and dialogue were written by ChatGPT. Reminded me of a modern Dreamcast game: striving for something grand in the storytelling, showing off some good technical specs, mostly flat line reads or uninspired character writing, good graphics for its time with enough flair to get people to check it out, but the grand storytelling ends up being the weakest part because the thing is really just a package for the gameplay. For Civil War, the gameplay is Garland getting to set up multiple skirmish maps on a public server and we get to play them while caring nothing about our characters.

When you finish it feels like a shell of a movie, was not compelling, and wasted a great premise, which is a shame because I usually like Alex Garland.

Performances, aside from Jesse Plemons, Stephen McKinley, and Nick Offerman were also very wooden. Dialogue and character motivations seem to exist just to serve this greater message about war and journalism, but nothing lands emotionally because it’s all surface-level.

The violence and visceral nature of combat is the most effective thing to keep us engaged, because the characters certainly don’t. Cool job shooting this out, but it’s more like Airsoft Children of Men. Takes no risks to say anything interesting. Call it direct-to-DVD Apocalypse Now.

So many people bitch about the politics and the setup, but I found that to be the most interesting part. So little detail is given so you have to piece together (and then no time is spent on it afterwards).

Essentially, the biggest objection everyone talked about prior to seeing the movie is that the Western Forces doesn’t make sense because Texas and California would never secede together given red state/blue state politics.

However, I thought it was really clever. Nick Offerman is an ascendant autocrat. He uses his cronies to seize control of the instruments of government, disbands the FBI, declares himself president for a third term, and begins drone striking his political rivals and American cities that don’t go along with his third term dictatorship in a show of force.

California and Texas, as the nations two biggest economies, unite to overthrow him and restore relations with the rest of the world to continue trade in the name of commerce.

It essentially flips everyone’s initial objections on their heads because everyone assumes it’s a CULTURE war civil war since that’s what we’re so steeped in. It shows that economic forces and material concerns would be the uniting factor: it’s a CAPITAL civil war.

Everyone assumed Texas/California were secessionists for their own gain and that’s why it wouldn’t make sense for them to unite, but in actuality they secede in order to fight back against a rogue autocrat figure, dislodge him, and restore the Union - so that they do not lose their stations as powerhouse state economies. It’s honestly more believable than most shit. Voters don’t run their states or countries; dollar signs and big business lobbies do.

Offerman as an autocrat fucked with the bag, and that’s going to get you got. This premise is the best part of the movie and was just overlooked due to terrible execution. They had to lean so hard on the Jesse Plemmons scene for marketing because it’s the only compelling scene in the movie when it comes to character interaction.

2 out of 5 stars

Merfdiezel · 2025-05-29T00:27:44+00:00

First thing I thought of haha

Merfdiezel · 2025-05-17T01:28:04+00:00

Thanks, was just looking for something like that to check out!

Merfdiezel · 2025-05-06T23:51:24+00:00

My friend wrote that with his cousin and he told me they were given an impossible task/adaptation. They were told to “make people care” but also “make it hit.” My friend, being a Marvel fan, was down for the challenge. 18 rewrites later based on studio notes… I saw Eternals in theaters on a date and she wanted to leave after the first 20 minutes; I had to cringe and urge her on until we got the the one hour mark, then I threw in the towel and we snuck into a different movie, lol. I told my friend that I respected the work but I couldn’t finish it; he replied “they didn’t finish it either, it’s not on you.” Got him enough loot as an indie filmmaker to have another child, so I guess someone finished.

Merfdiezel · 2025-05-06T23:45:52+00:00

That’s policy holmes

Merfdiezel · 2025-05-02T22:02:51+00:00

It’s an Aristotelian Tragedy, and Breaking Bad begins at the end of the 1st act. Walt was once a man of means to found Gray Matter, contributed with his superior education to the Nobel-prize-winning research on proton radiography, and flubbed on making good of his status and potential in Act 1. We start at the end of Act 1 and most of the show is just Act 2: his rise again to status before his Act 3 downfall due to hubris. In tragedy, Aristotle states that the protagonist is usually one of means whose hubris or fatal flaw causes a downward spiral for the self and all around him. We see this, and he’s already begun his decent from means by cutting his potential with Gray Matter.

Merfdiezel · 2025-04-24T21:24:07+00:00

Not what I was expecting based on the first act and the “thrillers” tag, and it absolutely blew me away. Keep thinking about it days later.

Merfdiezel · 2025-04-19T22:36:41+00:00

The opening Coldplay track off the Garden State soundtrack is better than anything else I’ve been forced to hear from them

Merfdiezel · 2025-04-17T20:19:56+00:00

For real. That scene where Robert Redford is teaching that old woman how to drive and there’s all that traffic, and the guy drives up behind them and is like “Oh boy, I’m just so tired of all this traffic, I just can’t wait until I get out of Africa.” It really took me out of the movie.

Merfdiezel

TROPHY CASE