Armond White Says ‘Crystal Skull’ Is Better Than ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark,’ Paul W.S.

[Octoberist]

Paul W.S. Anderson is basically this era's Roger Corman. Basically making B-movies .
The thing though is that these directors can inspire an entire generation of directors who will make some pretty awesome movies.
James Cameron has also worked under Corman and look at his status in the film industry.

P.T. Anderson is being called the next Kubrick. Hell he even met Kubrick who also talked with him about movies. I need to check up on this but Kubrich even gave him a one of a kind camera.

Both Andersons make different movies however i'd argue based on the Master's reception so far , both succeed with their respective movies.

agreed. The Tale of two Andersons.

 

[Gianakin_]

Paul W.S. Anderson is basically this era's Roger Corman. Basically making B-movies.

Based on budget and status alone, I'd say that's not true. Uwe Boll fits the bill more, imo.

 

[Gianakin_]

Does that not match up with my starting point for Kingdom?

No, why should it?

How so? Indy is reflecting yes, but he reflects in a very Indy manner. He is solemn and clumsy. Not giddy.

But meeting Marion is the payoff. All this nostalgia and boredom was waiting to be dispelled. That's what those scenes were setting up, the way I see it. The giddy "finally"-stating spark in his eyes.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

No, why should it?



But meeting Marion is the payoff. All this nostalgia and boredom was waiting to be dispelled. That's what those scenes were setting up, the way I see it. The giddy "finally"-stating spark in his eyes.

Sorry, I messed up with the Raiders and Crusades. It was Temple that fits. You seem to think third acts start right a the end of the film. Don't really agree.

Also, you pay that off with something like the back of the truck sequence. That is Indy being Indy and at the same time reaffirming his feelings for Marion.

 

[Gianakin_]

Sorry, I messed up with the Raiders and Crusades. It was Temple that fits. You seem to think third acts start right a the end of the film. Don't really agree.

Right at the end? Hardly. And generalising is not a good way to go. I mentioned 4 films of the same franchise, one of whose 3rd act (Crusade) starts way before the end.

Also, you pay that off with something like the back of the truck sequence. That is Indy being Indy and at the same time reaffirming his feelings for Marion.

Well, there's our disagreement. Indy never stopped being Indy in the camp meeting. And the truck would be a terrible way to do their re-union. It was a brilliant way to do the post-reunion explanations, though.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Right at the end? Hardly. And generalising is not a good way to go. I mentioned 4 films of the same franchise, one of whose 3rd act (Crusade) starts way before the end.

Crusade ends how much longer after that? I am honestly having trouble remembering. Not my favorite clearly.

Temple I agree with, and I understand your Raiders point, but disagree with it. Your Kingdom start point makes no sense to me. There is a clear break in the film once they meet up with Marion. A transition period that is capped off with Indy starting the escape.

Well, there's our disagreement. Indy never stopped being Indy in the camp meeting. And the truck would be a terrible way to do their re-union. It was a brilliant way to do the post-reunion explanations, though.

I didn't want it to be the first time they saw each other, but that is when Indy should bare his emotions. Not in some really awkward out of film moment of ridiculousness that isn't written well. They are all in deep crap and Indy just starts spazzing out.

But we are clearly not going to agree.

 

[Gianakin_]

Hm, based on my Crusade's placement of act 3, I can see how I can be wrong about Kingdom, since the former, too, starts with a fight that leads to the "final level", so to speak.

In which case I'll retract my statement about a sucky 3rd act in Kingdom and say it was a sucky "final level".

And no, we definitely won't agree on Indy/Marion.

 

[CGHulk]

I too think The Last Crusade is the best of the three, and I've never been a Raiders of the Lost Ark fan. I have a love hate relationship with the Temple of Doom. Crystal Skull is ridiculous.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The Last Crusade is he worst film. But it is still a lot of fun.

 

[Octoberist]

I'm telling you. I hate how Indy wore a necktie with his usual garb for no reason in Crusade. Minus 10 points!

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm telling you. I hate how Indy wore a necktie with his usual garb for no reason in Crusade. Minus 10 points!

I don't know why, but that made me laugh out loud.

 

[redhawk23]

Haven't seen The Master or RE5, but his thought process finds me in full agreement: He juxtaposes a movie that tries to pass off as deep and is provoking to a movie that's honest and never lies to you about what you just came to see by paying $10. Which is better, the dumb one that achieves its goal or the ambitious that fails?

Not saying he's right about those 2 in particular, but I like the way he thinks.

What about a film actually having any goals at all? The RE films have devolved into pure tripe. Even a basic passing the time with entertainment level the 4th and 5th movies completely fail.

 

[Gianakin_]

I don't know why, but that made me laugh out loud.

That's 'cause you read it in Big Gay Al's voice.

 

[Gianakin_]

What about a film actually having any goals at all? The RE films have devolved into pure tripe. Even a basic passing the time with entertainment level the 4th and 5th movies completely fail.

Like I said, I don't know about RE vs. The Master, so I don't agree or disagree with his particular comparison.

But I agree with his reasoning in general. Now, if a film doesn't have any purpose, then it's the worst of the worst, I guess? But I think that a film will at the very least try to make you have a nice time. I think that very few filmmakers will try to sadistically torture their potential audience via a movie.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

My problem with the RE series is that it fails at being what it is trying to be. It is trying to be cool and awe inspiring, when it really at its best it is just laughably bad and at its worse, just completely boring.

 

[Gianakin_]

I agreek.

 

[Octoberist]

I see what you did there.

 

[Gianakin_]

How? It was so subtle! Nolan wrote it!

 

[DarthSkywalker]

How? It was so subtle! Nolan wrote it!

Nolan only writes in neon.

 

[Gianakin_]

Refn only writes in neon.

Fixed

 

[redhawk23]

That's what I'm saying though. RE's relation to the master is irrelevant. If the films can be said to have any aim, those aims are likely very different. They have different audiences etc.

But even when taken in their own terms the past few RE films suck. Action films are helped along by at least having some what interesting characters as it helps that you care if they die or not. It also helps if the action set pieces are well shot, present the stakes, are visceral.

The past two RE films cant even be said to work on that level. They try to make the best use of 3d by having things slow almost to a stop and have thing glide through space but its all so artificial that it looks like a cropped out photo sliding across a green screen background...because that's exactly what you're watching.


Also as for the "the new Roger Corman" argument, that comparison doesn't really hold up either. While Corman certainly did produce and direct some really shoddy movies, there were those that were at least interesting. Additionally, those movies were made on a shoe string budget. They were defined by their limitations.

Resident Evil 5 on the other hand has a budget of 65 million dollars. While thats a far cry from the budget of something like the avengers, that is still a solid chunk of change. Thats about the same as Looper which comes out this week, 20 million more than the very effective (though sadly not successful) Dredd 3d. That's more than twice as much as was spent making District 9, 5 times more than Attack the Block or The Raid.

Also while they'll bringing random famous bits completely out of context, the movies are now very far removed from the stories or characters of their source material, which if used properly actually could contribute to making a decent movie.

They don't really have any excuse for how bad they are, but hey, they make bank.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Fixed

That explains why I am so attracted to his work. Like a fly.

 

[Gianakin_]

That's what I'm saying though. RE's relation to the master is irrelevant. If the films can be said to have any aim, those aims are likely very different. They have different audiences etc.

However, sometimes audiences intertwine. I'll watch The Master and RE5 (not at the theatre, though, RE5, that is). I know what I expect from each one. If each achieves its respective goal, done and done. If none do, shame. If one does, then a "comparison" will ensue.

 

[Octoberist]

Comparisons to what end? I mean, then people will eventually figure out a way to compare This is 40 to Thin Red Line.

 

[redhawk23]

Additionally, while the whole "achieving its goals" argument is one I often subscribe to, I don't believe films can wholly be judged just in terms of it story. Its vitally important of course but film is a form of story telling and success in the form is important. Otherwise why not just tell the story another way? Just as a movie can be impeccably design but be empty, a movie can try to tell a good story but be hampered by amateurish production.