criterionforum.org

I know it stars Seth Rogen but Michel Gondry is directing it so, I don't know, I'm looking forward to it...

It really looks like one of the mid '90s comic adaptations rather than some of the more recent ones. I'm pretty sure that's a bad thing but like you said, talent.

I am too. It wasn't like this was a prestige pic so the move to January never disturbed me too much, and there have apparently been a lot of early screenings going on that have been received well. Kato was my biggest fear (to be honest, in the trailers, the actor doesn't seem too charismatic) but from early impressions I've read, apparently he steals the show. And the Superbad and Pineapple Express scripts (not to mention Rogen's writing work on the forever underrated Undeclared) leave me pretty confident that this will be, at the least, a good time at the movies.

Plus, Michel Gondry! I mean, shit, the guy directed one of the best films of the last decade.

mfunk9786 wrote:Plus, Michel Gondry! I mean, shit, the guy directed one of the best films of the last decade.

Yeah, I know, I thought Science of Sleep was great too!

I'm so fucking sick of comic book movies, straight up. I love Gondry though, so I feel like its kind of obligatory (as will Aronofsky's new Wolverine one)

Green Hornet has nothing to do with comic books. It was a radio program ala the Phantom or the Shadow.

oldsheperd wrote:Green Hornet has nothing to do with comic books. It was a radio program ala the Phantom or the Shadow.

The character started on the radio, but the character has had a long history in comic books too.

EDIT: Still, I detest superheroes movies, whether they are comics based or originating from other media. It's sort of like pimping cereal via Saturday morning cartoons (do they even have those anymore, Saturday morning cartoons, I mean?)

oldsheperd wrote:Green Hornet has nothing to do with comic books. It was a radio program ala the Phantom or the Shadow.

According to this wikipedia entry there were comic book spin-offs from the 1940s onwards.

Gondry's non-Kaufman penned, non-music video work has yet to click for me at all. Comic book/superhero fatigue and 3D fatigue are strikes two and three for my enthusiasm on this one. And it can't be a good sign that this is being released in the dregs of January/February, right?

It was originally going to be released on Christmas, but the schedule was packed, so the studio wisely delayed it. But this isn't like an acting-driven awards bait type of movie being pushed back into January (Country Strong, for example, which is getting terrible reviews) - it's just a superhero comedy.

Tribe wrote: EDIT: Still, I detest superheroes movies, whether they are comics based or originating from other media. It's sort of like pimping cereal via Saturday morning cartoons (do they even have those anymore, Saturday morning cartoons, I mean?)

Huh? Maybe the recent glut of superhero film isn't to your liking, but many a great story can be told using the form, several fitting the movie format. While it's not movies, take a look at the DCAU which is one of the best serialized stories I've ever encountered. Also I don't really understand the cereal analogy.

knives wrote:

Tribe wrote: EDIT: Still, I detest superheroes movies, whether they are comics based or originating from other media. It's sort of like pimping cereal via Saturday morning cartoons (do they even have those anymore, Saturday morning cartoons, I mean?)

Huh? Maybe the recent glut of superhero film isn't to your liking, but many a great story can be told using the form, several fitting the movie format. While it's not movies, take a look at the DCAU which is one of the best serialized stories I've ever encountered. Also I don't really understand the cereal analogy.

Needless to say, I should have prefaced my comments with an IMHO.

Knives, the last Batman movie was enjoyable enough, I suppose...if only because I really liked Heath Ledger's Joker portrayal. But, aside from that I can't think of a single superhero-based movie that was entertaining. I just can't get beyond the silly dialogue, the silly costumes and my inability to believe in the logic of those stories, as I could in a good sci-fi movie.

The only comics-based superhero story I've enjoyed over the past twenty or so years was Watchmen, Elektra Assassin, Miller's Dark Knight (I'm sure there are a few others that I forget at the moment). I gave the Marvel Crisis an honest try...and, well, see the reasons I gave above. It just reminded me why I gave up on the super hero comics genre back in the late 60s-early 70s. I've even tried going back to those 60s Marvel series....and they are hardly entertaining for me as I found them when I was much much younger. I still dig the art, but the stories are utterly horrible for me.

The cereal analogy is that Saturday morning cartoons largely became vehicles to sell cereal to kids...then to sell toys and other merchandise. I find something similar going on with the rash of super hero movies...vehicles to sell merchandising.

zedz wrote:The only superhero film you'll ever need.

That looks incredibly badass!

EDIT: Why was I never informed of the existence of this?

zedz did mention it at least 80000V times during the 2000s list project.

I just wanted to repost one the youtube comments:

Priceless experience when I saw this at Melbourne International Film Festival years ago.

The director, Ishii Sogo, was in attendance. For the entire screening, via his interpreter, he continually was calling the projectoion booth telling them "Louder! Louder"!

The only time I've heard a cinema at full tilt, sound wise. To top it all off, they had THX sound!!!

Tribe wrote:

knives wrote:

Tribe wrote: EDIT: Still, I detest superheroes movies, whether they are comics based or originating from other media. It's sort of like pimping cereal via Saturday morning cartoons (do they even have those anymore, Saturday morning cartoons, I mean?)

Huh? Maybe the recent glut of superhero film isn't to your liking, but many a great story can be told using the form, several fitting the movie format. While it's not movies, take a look at the DCAU which is one of the best serialized stories I've ever encountered. Also I don't really understand the cereal analogy.

Needless to say, I should have prefaced my comments with an IMHO.

Knives, the last Batman movie was enjoyable enough, I suppose...if only because I really liked Heath Ledger's Joker portrayal. But, aside from that I can't think of a single superhero-based movie that was entertaining. I just can't get beyond the silly dialogue, the silly costumes and my inability to believe in the logic of those stories, as I could in a good sci-fi movie.

I agree that most of the live action superhero films out right now, while better than their '90s counterparts, have nothing special about them. Part of that I think is that none of these directors understand nor love what they're doing. Nolan's a great example of this. While as films his Batman features are entertaining his insistence on this false reality business is more absurd than the storytelling techniques he's rallying against. If I had to pick one American feature that really understands how to tell a superhero story it would be Mask of the Phantasm (which is part of that DCAU I mentioned earlier). If nothing else it will make Ledger's Joker look like pudding. Also while I haven't had the fortune of seeing them I've heard the recent Red Hood and Planet Hulk films are also really intensely and intelligently made.
Of course this all within the realm of movies. Comic Books, obviously, are still doing a bang up job with Grant Morrison's run on Batman being the best in decades. 52 and the short lived Blue Beetle series are another recent set that is worth checking out. Also while I haven't read it everything I've heard about Crisis (and really Marvel over the last 17 years or so) is frightening. Not the place to look for good storytelling.

Looks like we may have to wait for a little longer for Michel Gondry (whose Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind I loved) to rediscover his mojo, if Slant's takedown of the Hornet is anything to go by. Some choice quotes:

Directed by Michel Gondry, modern cinema's resident authority on romantic dreams and broken hearts, The Green Hornet feels surprisingly awake and willingly crass for a film about delusion. But this has everything to do with Rogen's influence on the production. (...) there are few identifying marks of the filmmaker's previous work (only a late montage crackles with Gondry's love for model structures), and this artistic castration might be the film's most damning failure. For a film with so many potentially hallucinatory avenues, imagination seems to be a worthless currency. (...) The clashing of tones and the mixture of genres in The Green Hornet all point to a film balancing multiple identities, one that lacks a singular artist at the wheel. Rogen obviously wanted to make an ambitious genre film, but the superfluous screenplay he co-wrote with Evan Goldberg just reinforces the same childish tropes you can find in any other comedy or action film, leaving only glimmers of creative promise dancing from scene to scene. Most worrisome is how Gondry and Rogen in particular genuinely think these referential antics and snide impressions are universally entertaining. The American box office receipts will ultimately tell them if they're right

Did anyone expect this film to be an auteur piece?

mfunk9786 wrote:Did anyone expect to be an auteur piece?

I always expected to be an auteur piece, but gave up the dream years ago.

Sometimes I think I'm an auteur piece from Michael Cimino; built up to be a masterpiece, only to end up being a disaster (with some redeeming qualities).

I definitely expected it to be an auteur piece...









OF SHIT

(high five) o/

willoneill wrote:Sometimes I think I'm an auteur piece from Michael Cimino; built up to be a masterpiece, only to end up being a disaster (with some redeeming qualities).

What a crock of shit! willoneill is one of the best forum posters of the 1980s. Even the French like him! The French!

If slutty Quebec girls count as "the French", then yes, you are correct.