faceh
6hr ago
The first Raid movie was the first time I watched a martial arts film that sold me on the "these guys aren't choreographed, they're hitting each other for real" element.
Which simply means that they were immaculately choreographed, but the EVERY strike was delivered like they wanted the other guy dead. And still maybe only time I've seen a two-on-one fight where I truly believed the two weren't holding back and the one was still winning.
faceh
8hr ago
The MI series truly peaked with 4. Tom climbing the Burj Khalifa still puckers my butthole to watch.
After that they had the formula perfected so they remain extremely entertaining and work on the strength of their script and the chemistry Tom has with everyone. So they're all eminently watchable.
I kind of assumed their personality got wiped once she took them over, but maybe that's just cope to protect my psyche, because that is fucking horrific.
I think this was semi-confirmed when the ending said that some of the kids managed to learn to talk again. Oh, and they had a clip of a nature documentary about the Cordyceps parasite.
Honestly could go either way. If there was a full personality wipe then some of the deaths are a tad less tragic since it wasn't actually 'killing' the person... they were dead as soon as their brain got wiped.
I guess it just logically makes sense to me that if Gladys was clearly able to hijack the lower brain functions, the motor cortex and some of the basic primal instincts (i.e., switch off pain reception... or at least the ability to react to pain) the higher brain functions/awareness were probably still 'intact' but just couldn't override the commands given to the lower function.
(obviously, killing something that is sockpuppeting body of a loved one is still pretty freaking horrifying/traumatic even if they're not sentient)
You're clearly a big movie person, you need to watch both ASAP
I really have to be in the right mood for horror, is the thing.
faceh
11hr ago
I still see the uncertain and unknown as aspects of powerlessness.
Right, I'm mostly agreeing. But I'm just making the point that even the most powerful person around still fears the unknown.
Even if the unknown turns out to not be all that dangerous, later. I guess "powerlessness against the inevitable mechanisms of fate" is still powerlessness.
Fear of death, well, that's largely about uncertainty about what comes after, so those with immense faith aren't really afraid of it. What makes the SCP files frightening is usually the implications of the redacted stuff that your brain has to fill in details on, somewhat less about the actual abilities of the thing in question.
There's the fear that comes from the near certainty of what is going to happen, and then futilely trying to avoid it.
Huh. Here's an innovative idea for a horror film: what could scare an omnipotent god?
The Exorcist is a great example, the movie is a giant metaphor for parents feeling powerless to help a sick kid.
Yep.
Weapons played with this as well, I loved Josh Brolin's character. And kind of gets to my point. He was a man of action, he didn't believe he was powerless, and they played with that to comedic effect while he was tossing the druggie around. But when your kid is missing, there's a feeling of helplessness there.
I wouldn't consider Aliens' main genre to be horror because for the most part the marines don't feel helpless,
Well, like I said, I tend to like films that hide the horror until later. It was definitely a rip-roaring 80's adventure movie for almost half of it.
faceh
13hr ago
Saw Raid II in theaters and was BLOWN AWAY. High expectations from the first one and they topped it in every conceivable way.
Even the goofy bits (girl with hammers and batboy) worked really well in-context.
That giant brawl in the mud pit at the prison is one of my favorite scenes because all the 'skill' sort of goes out the window as everyone is slipping around barely able to stand, but the brutality of the moves are still fully there. Another of those "how are those guys not dead?" movies.
It indeed taps into the root of horror: powerlessness.
Hah, while I don't disagree I never really found that to be the core of horror for me.
For me its always 'uncertainty' and fear of the unknown/poorly understood.' I think that's why The Ring did resonate for me. Its all this shit happening to you for reasons you simply do not understand and its clearly building to something but having little time to figure it out, and the further along you get the 'less' sense everything makes.
And by the end... it turns out you DO have the power to escape your fate... but only by condemning others/playing into the evil's plan.
I also like films that play with the cold, uncaring nature of fate/the universe where you can do everything 'right', make all kinds of necessary preparations, and still lose when random circumstance plays out just so.
Hell, I love Aliens because the characters are armed to the fuckin' teeth, and the horror comes when they realize the actual magnitude of the threat. All the power they have and it might barely be enough to win... or not. Similar with the original Predator.
Now, if you throw in the element where some other person you care about is powerless and you are tasked with trying to help/save them in the face of massive uncertainty, that's what gets me. Like when Ripley arms up with the exosuit to fight the queen and save newt... Get away from her you BITCH, indeed.
The Bourne movies have one of the best sequences to this effect. Bourne frantically trying to save Nikki Parsons from an implacable assassin, sprinting across rooftops while she's trying to evade the guy (and, consequently, Bourne has difficulty tracking her). Hell, even earlier in the movie, when he's trying to help the reporter escape capture.
Being a powerful guy and still being uncertain if it'll be enough to survive, or save the day? THAT starts to scare me.
My personal benchmark on Horror films is The Ring which was innovative as it was a monster movie but the monster doesn't appear until the end, after the fakeout that things were 'fixed,' and most of the horror is the sense of dread that permeates the film.
And that movie only 'works' because of that brief period where CRT TVs, VHS tapes, and landline phones were the most common tech of the day. I don't think you could remake it effectively now!
And as I understand it the recent crop of horror films avoid this issue by making the horror come from psychological conditions that may or may not have a literal personification onscreen, sort of a 'the monster is inside you the whole time' concept, or more abstract "racism/sexism/right wing politics/relationship drama" as the looming allegorical danger.
I think what I mean wrt horror films is that they inherently play with the same tropes over and over again. Body Horror, Jumpscares, indestructible/implacable entity that wants YOU, specifically, dead, straight up gore (hello, Terrifier 3), psychological uncertainty (am I crazy or not?), various metaphors for sexual assault, and the occasional thick layer of existentialism.
I haven't heard of one that really breaks the mold of audience expectations in a while. Cabin in the Woods was innovative for satirizing how formulaic they tended to be.
I watched Weapons last year, and it was a satisfyingly entertaining movie, and the ending was great. But after the initial mystery of "Where the fuck did those kids go" resolves, I felt pretty disconnected. The film wisely switches over to 'action' mode whenever the pace starts to lull. And the concept of being 'locked in' and conscious whilst your body is compelled to commit violence against people you care about is indeed horrifying.
I just feel no need to watch the film again!
Perhaps the most 'innovative' recent horror movie I saw was 2014's The Guest. And it was innovative in the sense that the 'horror' element was hiding in plain sight, then escalates to the point where its basically a straight-up slasher movie... but also with competent action. Oh, also Bone Tomahawk (same year) for hiding behind a Western facade for 90 minutes and whipping out the horror only after you've gotten comfortable that the movie plays by the standard Western rules. I feel a need to watch the film again... but not sure if I can stomach it.
I guess I just like Horror movies that masquerade as something else so you don't KNOW what they're trying to do until it is too late. Straight horror movies generally have me anticipating most of the scary bits well before they happen. Also it always annoys me when the core danger in the film could be handily solved with a gun.
But I do have to retreat from my argument about horror not doing much innovative for decades. I've also heard good things about Nosferatu and Midsommar.
The vulgar teen coming of age sex comedy era was basically 1999 (American Pie) to Superbad (2007),
Have to disagree, since my dad had VHS copies of Revenge of the Nerds, Porky's, and Earth Girls are Easy. I was not allowed to watch.
By 2001 the genre was played out enough that they produced Not Another Teen Movie as a full on parody of the entire thing. Which introduced me to Cerina Vincent('s breasts). I think it's just been a mainstay of Hollywood since the 80's until circa 2012 (Project X), and now is just gone. Might just be the fact that kids watch actual internet porn now, so titillating tease movies don't have the appeal they used to.
and the real gen Z trend is that they don't care about comedy movies at all, and their comedy world is memes and streaming and nonsense like "6-7."
Streamers and Youtubers.
The fact that Markiplier made a pretty bad (by most accounts) indie horror movie that nonetheless made $50 million is a sign of something.
Also, Horror as a Genre is still plugging along extremely well, which mildly surprises me, since imo the genre hasn't had much originality to offer for decades.
The more serious problem is just that it's slow-paced and all of the fights are very much curbstomps one direction or the other.
I rather liked that feature, since it is pretty true-to-life if there's a significant skill/strength differential, which in a world of cyborg bodies... THERE WILL BE. The art is in portraying that gap in a pleasing way.
Also GitS: Stand Alone Complex is maybe the first anime series I seriously engaged with.
And Kung Fu Hustle is a MUST-SEE.
That all makes sense.
But still, Superbad did $121 million domestically. Relatively unknown cast and director, a non-sequel, just carried on the strength of writing and acting.
And somehow, near as I can tell, the 'vulgar teen/coming of age sex comedy' is literally dead as a genre, and I partially blame MeToo, since borderline rapey interactions are a source of some of their humor.
Gen Z Came of age without any equivalent cultural touchstone.
comedies are almost dead entirely.
This is what baffles me a bit about the current landscape. Growing up comedies were usually some of the biggest movies in a given year. Superbad, Tropic Thunder, Zombieland, whatever Will Ferrel movie came out that year, and Seth Rogan's Oeuvre.
Inevitably those would be the films people would be quoting at each other forever thereafter.
And they're really a footnote these days. My guess is its just been subsumed by television series.
Or, as you point out, subsumed by Superhero movies. Deadpool still does big numbers while being more pure comedy.
Dredd, as mentioned.
The Raid: Redemption and its sequel. Absolutely insane Indonesian martial arts flick, but the director is Welsh. Launched several of its actors to greater fame. It will probably ruin any other modern martials arts movies for you. I don't know how they filmed that without anyone dying.
Mad Max: Fury Road. Watch the rest of the series too, but this one set a new standard for cinematic balls-to-the-wall action.
The Bourne Trilogy. Okay, there are more movies... and they're not terrible. BUT the story and character arc of the original three are perfectly executed. Great action (especially the 3rd) but a lot of people really dislike Greengrass' shaky-cam style in the second and third. Bail out if you're getting motion sickness, it doesn't get better.
Hot Fuzz. Probably in the running for the best action-comedy of ALL TIME and the jokes and interlocked plot elements are so dense you'll need to watch like 3 times to catch most of 'em.
Upgrade. Very 80's-coded... but they put effort into using modern techniques and it should surprise you a few times with how clever it is.
Shoot 'Em Up. Parody of a particular brand of late-90's early-2000s action schlock that is self aware but not offensively so. I love the soundtrack, personally.
The Expendables 1 and 2 (skip 3 and 4). Equal parts funny but inelegant satire of 80's action movies and a loving tribute/sendoff to some of the top stars of the era. Tried and very much failed to pass the torch to a new generation of action stars. I blame superhero movies.
Taken. This movie doomed Liam Neeson to doing action roles for 20 years. Everyone really only knows THAT scene, but the whole thing is quite the entertaining ride.
300. My God. Its like the purest distillation of "12 year old boys playing with action figures" movie I've ever seen, but Zack Snyder was BORN to make this film. It has a distinct look and feel that has simply never been replicated since.
Hardcore Henry. Also not a movie for those sensitive to motion sickness, but extremely impressive achievement that falls just a tad short of greatness, but is also full of "how the hell did they film that" moments.
Some Honorable Mentions:
The Accountant
Crank (and the sequel)
Equilibrium
Kingsman: The Secret Service. This movie justifies its existence on THAT church scene alone.
The Edge of Tomorrow.
faceh
3d ago
True. Although I note that I find it easy to overdo, many writers think "profanity in odd contexts = funny" without the recognition that you have to balance it so it is actually dissonant rather than just obscene.
I enjoyed the first Season of Stranger Things where there was dissonance from the young heroes occasionally dropping F-bombs under stress. The later seasons they made them ALL potty-mouths, even in front of adults, and even the younger kids.
It has to be somewhat unexpected to work.
See also This video.
faceh
3d ago
Most of my writing style is informed by legal training, I think. Balancing conciseness with clarity, and verbosity with accessibility. I think I use too many words yet I want to make sure I'm conveying the meaning as I truly intend it. Because that meaning IS my Motte, and I will defend it with honor.
But yeah, the shape of my style has been formed by trying to argue effectively with people who can pick apart tiny inconsistencies and will notice when you omit certain words or add unsustainable premises, yet also retain civility. Grandstanding is rarely rewarded, but you have to be a bit entertaining if you hope a few dozen people (at least) will read your text walls.
faceh
3d ago
LMAO.
@self_made_human is one of my favorite posters. Whenever I find myself nodding along with a comment thinking "oh yeah that's about what I would write" more often than not its one of his. So the resemblance is definitely noticeable.
And to be fair, if I still cared about OpSec, setting up a second account with a completely different profile, then scheduling comments to be posted during my sleeping hours, is definitely something I might do.
I'm really not 'focused' on the gender war per se. I still read all the other topics, and I used to engage a LOT with everything, going back to the reddit days. But Gender stuff is now one of the few areas I feel like I have decent insights, and the topic is getting more heated by the week. Other than AI, it is the topic that is having the single largest impact on political and economic trajectory in the next 30 years, so I find myself engaging with it a lot in part to help myself refine my understanding.
but lol, case in point, I HAVE, in other forums, used the tactic of creating a different account that focuses more aggressively on posting about one particular topic so that it doesn't create too much controversy for my main account, since I prefer NOT to become known as "that guy who only cares about one thing."
faceh
3d ago
Yep.
A bit of cargo-culting.
"OMG all the successful elites went to college, and they send their kids to college, that must be the shortcut to success!"
And in very small instances it sure would be. Get a bright, talented kid in a room with the future CEOs and political leaders and they might be able to navigate that into wealth and/or fame (shoutout to JD Vance).
But the second tier and below colleges were happy to ride coattails on the implicit promise. Although there's probably still some benefits on a regional level.
faceh
3d ago
It must be the Millenial in me, but somehow, "take any staid, stodgy, formal, professorial, restrained affair or institution and add raucous profanity and exaggerated reactions while otherwise playing things straight" is instant comedy gold for me.
"Jesus H. Christ, we're on the fucking moon" delivered in the standard professional NASA tone has me cackling.
I just realized there HAS to be some market for accurate, quality reporting delivered with this exact sort of style, and LLMs should be able to provide it.
I'm gonna have Grok do this for any articles I read from now on.
faceh
3d ago
I have some fatally optimistic faith that we'll figure something out just in time, and kludge together some kind of solution to stave off disaster.
But in my pessimistic days it really does feel like a 'rot' has set in and a 'soft reset' is our best case scenario.
faceh
3d ago
I'd argue that what is TRULY valuable about university has long been the network of similarly situated intelligent comrades, and the later access to institutions connected to said people, gated by their familiarity with the institution.
The paper cert has value only to the extent it unlocks the right doors.
At this point, I have little problem envisioning university that are basically, call it 'social clubs', where AI professors do all the lecturing, grading, etc., but students are paying to get in the door amongst others who are of a particular class and have particular resources they can leverage once they're done learning.
If there is no difference in the quality of education, the only possible advantage I can see is creating networks that will put like minded individuals in contact and allow them to gain some edge over those in competing networks.
faceh
3d ago
The stats on the relative happiness of married vs. unmarried women suggest its still a Pareto improvement.
And no, "I'm staying with you for the Pareto benefits" is not how most people want to envision their marriage. Its just, if their alternative is worse you shouldn't discourage the slightly better arrangement if they're otherwise suited for it.
To me, its fair to say "Traditional Marriage, encompassed by a socioeconomic order (likely with religious foundation) that is maximally supportive of marriage happiness and longevity is best suited for human thriving."
It is indeed unfair to say "just get into a trad marriage and you'll be happy," when the the social connective tissue and supporting structures are not present.
Or put a little more broadly, Trad marriage doesn't work as well when society isn't geared towards producing devoted, supportive, loyal men and modest, sweet, submissive women for each other to marry, yes.
But that indicts society, not the institution of marriage.
My huge, blaring objection is that this is all tied up in the same set of incentives that moved us to an equilibrium where the college degree is de facto required... even though it doesn't really lead to higher performance/productivity/pay in most cases.
Yes, that is what was 'promised', but in practice, college degrees don't confer extra prestige, status, or compensation.
The reason college became so critical is because more people started going, and there was a direct push to get female enrollment up.
Quoth:
1994 also saw The Gender Equity in Education Act which made it actual policy to push for more education programs geared towards women, and might be attributable to the general decline in male performance in school, which would then play into the college issue.
Increasing the demand for college and the supply of college degrees has various unfortunate side impacts, which Scott covered in Against Tulip Subsidies.
Remove this incentive, and make it less viable for everyone to attend college, relieve the 'need' for college degrees for many, many jobs. Save people from a ton of extra debt and four years of 'wasted' time.
Basically college is only a 'gate' for such valuable employment because we can't escape the Nash Equilibrium we intentionally created without some top-down policy adjustments.
Leaving aside that women who go to college sort into majors that pay less.
Leaving aside that they end up with far more student debt than males, and take longer to pay it off.
Oh, and let's leave aside that women who become doctors (and thus take up a residency slot) tend to leave the field early. Read that again. We spend a metric ton of resources to train up doctors... and we expect to get a lot of work out of them. We spend the same amount of resources regardless of the gender of the doctor... but for almost half of women they'll duck out early without supplying nearly as much work as their male counterparts. MASSIVE supply constraint in an already constrained and critical field.
But leave all that aside.
Try and articulate specifically why a woman getting a college degree would make her more valuable. Either to a company, or a potential partner, or even the economy at large.
I mean, really, lay out the case for why that is her most economically useful/productive course. I want to hear the steeliest steelman for it. (Bonus points if you don't reference the sudden spike in demand for female laborers that occurred during World War II).
Because I'd just point out that even IF you have an intelligent, driven woman who would accel in a college environment and could be extremely productive in a high-impact field...
It is almost certainly better for her to have some kids with a worthy male and use her talents to raise them as high achievers than it is for her to cut her reproductive window short pursuing personal advancement... which she'll have to cut short to have kids (remember those doctors up there).
We need more smart kids. This means we need smart women to have kids. There's no other way about it. Which means we need to be economizing for smart women having more kids... and that inherently pushes against them using their most fertile years on the dubious benefit of four years (or MORE! Women are more likely to pursue graduate degrees!) of formal education for a degree that won't substantively improve their lives.
And that's only ONE dimension to that argument. I'm not saying this is 'fair' or 'optimal across all possible universes.' But I AM saying its a massively preferable equilibrium to the one we currently find ourselves in.
(And this equilibrium suggests a lot fewer males attending college too, I'm not really making it a targeted gender thing)
And maybe AI obviates the entire discussion, but the other fun bit is that AI is probably going to make college completely obsolete even if it never improves from its current state. You can now get instruction from the equivalent of the greatest professors in any given subject for like $20 a month.
Yeah, it surely helped that these guy were absolute no-names so no need to get prissy about the physical demands/possible injuries.
Which created a bit of a contrast when Ruhian and Rahman showed up in John Wick 3 and the fact that it was choreographed and they were pulling punches and waiting their turn was blatant by comparison. Not really buying it, even if they bother to spotlight the respect the fighters have for him.
Sorry John, if it is hand-to-hand then Mad Dog solos you.
Okay, to contrast and add to the point, the OTHER time I saw a two-on-one was that was a believable challenge is that infamous Mission Impossible fight. "Yeah, I can accept Henry Cavill getting bodied by an Asian half his size, that guy is badass."
More options
Context Copy link