Pajiba

When in the hands of people who remember that it’s meant as entertainment — take it seriously but seriously have fun with it — and with professionals used to putting on airs, it can be amazing.

This is refreshing to hear. Not many people quite understand this or get this.

In our pre-game ministrations, we had discussed the alleged geek pecking order: videogamer > role-playing > Magic: The Gathering > L.A.R.P.ers.

Yep. Totally agree. That fits squarely within the "official" Geek hierarchy:

http: //www.brunching.com/geekhierarchy. html

I still play videogames and role-playing games. I remember when I was in highschool and college wondering when I would finally stop. Well, I'm 36 years old, married (to non-role-player) and a professional and I still enjoy it, even though we only play once every couple of months tops, but do so for the very reason you mentioned.

I tried LARPing once. Once. It wasn't for me.

Didn't realize that was the abridged version of the Geek Heirarchy.

Here is the full version:

http:// www.hackvan.com/pub/stig/funny/geek/the-geek-hierarchy/the-geek-hierarchy-chart-2.0-fullversion.gif

Thank you so much for posting this! I often find myself digging through the never ending pile of netflix instant play while I wait for my next movie to come in the mail. I vote for this to be weekly!

Stella: You're a geek. So am I, although I lean towards the medieval era. To be a LARPer you actually have to live the lie, so to speak.

for an excellent larger-than-nerd-life documentary, I recommend "the king of kong" on netflix watch instantly. it's so much more than a flick about people who get their rocks off on classic video games.

Brian, I haven't seen Monster Camp, but if you liked that, you'll probably also dig on Darkon. It sounds pretty similar, but the structure of Darkon-- while a documentary-- has the feel of a narrative film. The "adventure", if you can suspend your disbelief enough, really is almost as good as any 80s fantasy movie I've ever seen. Well, it's at least better than Cave Dwellers.

You're absolutely right about 'Dear Zachary', THRILLHO - that documentary gut-punched me like nothing before or since, first movie in years that I couldn't watch without pausing and raging over numerous times.

Comedy Central also has a lot of their stand up specials on Instant watch. I watched Jo Koy and Adam Ferarra last night. They have about 40 different ones though.

Oh, I loved The Vicious Kind. And by loved, I mean was absolutely repulsed in the best kind of way - Adam Scott was so tense and unbalanced it completely changed my opinion of him as an actor. It was also the movie that finally made me realize Brittany Snow and Ashley Tisdale were two different people - Snow's got talent! Who'd a thought?

PS - Chris, I saw Yesterday Was A Lie. Your comment about how Prisco is exactly the type of jackass you hoped would hate your shitty movie is hilarious, because that is exactly the kind of pretentious delusions of grandeur I expected the makers of that movie to have.

@Marra: No pretentious delusions. Actual grandeur.

See, Rampage is actually much much creepier than you give it credit for, though maybe credit isn't the right word, because it's a horrible fucking movie. It's clearly self-insertion fantasy for Boll - note how the protagonist is always seen punching the heavy bag as he trains for his massacre? This doesn't seem a little coincidental that Boll always challenged his critics to boxing matches, and in fact is a semi-professional boxer himself?

Also, if you've read any of his garbled and immature political statements over the years, his constant use of radio and tv broadcasts that have no substance other than "shit's fucked up" just reinforces his worldview as pessimistic and childish.

Finally, and brief spoiler, I don't think it's a coincidence that his movie stand in gets away with the stolen money at the end - he's saying he can spar, both physically and verbally, with his critics, but in the end he still gets away with the money.

Basically the whole movie is a masturbatory critic-murdering fantasy with a healthy dose of contempt thrown in. The man is human garbage.

Oh, Chris, you're so pretty.

I discovered SLC Punk! the other night on Netflix. I didn't get all the way to the end, but I was pretty much getting into it. Found out it came out a good 12 years ago.

Chris is a crotch-sniffer.

Oh and PLEASE continue this feature!!! Purely selfish reasons, but I just got Netflix and we do the instantomatic thingie on three TVs, two laptops and two desktops now. I found out they have Bollywood films and I'm on cloud nine.

I continue to play both Magic the Gathering and Dungeons and Dragons. But I don't L.A.R.P. Not because I think it's lame, but because I don't like to go outdoors.

Prisco, you are my new favorite (psst -- don't tell Figgy).

What is the thread that got Pookie banned? Why do people on this site act like that is a big secret? You people are weird.

Thanks ja for the King of Kong reminder and +1 on making this a regular feature too. I recently joined the Oz version of Netflix and have a queue to fill.

I hadn't heard of Yesteday Was a Lie before now but I did check out the link that Chris posted. Any movie that divisive gets me curious. For every glowing review from a legit source there is a negative one from a similar source. Gotta admit, I'm pretty intrigued.

"@MelBiv: http://www.heliconarts.com/yesterday/quotes.html"

Since the official website for the movie lists more positive reviews than negative, OBVIOUSLY the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I don't know why we couldn't see that.

"What is the thread that got Pookie banned? Why do people on this site act like that is a big secret? You people are weird."

To my knowledge, Pookie has unfortunately never been banned. The site owner asked Pookie to go away and not come back. Sadly, this happy state of affairs did not last. I don't remember in which precise thread this happened, but it might have been one of the Tyler Perry reviews from a while back. Pookie uses any criticism of Perry as an opportunity to accuse everyone of racism and to insult Dustin.

I third The King of Kong. Fantastic doc.

Yeah, it took forever but I read the comment section from Observe & Report and it's not where Pookie got booted. Although ph does make mention of reading the actual review in which he did, without saying which one it was of course.

Man, now I want to see Yesterday Was a Lie. Well done, Chris.

Reading through some of the reviews, I came across this gem: "If you enjoy excellent movies, you'll love YESTERDAY WAS A LIE." I hope the rest of the positive reviews Chris raves about are actually well-written, because this official critic (as opposed to the derided blog writers) needs a better editor and a brain. It might depend on your definition of "excellent movie" you fucking numpty.

Doesn't prove anything, just thought it was funny. C'mon, "if you enjoy excellent movies"? That's ridiculous writing.

I find it odd you don't care if people see the movie. Is that one of those art-for-art's-sake arguments? Shouldn't you want an audience? Or is it because I post here that you don't care if I watch it?

That's too bad, because some of the good reviews are quite full of praise, some of it even well-written, thoughtful and convincing.

And "Actually, obviously the response HAS been overwhelmingly positive" and "The film has had ~80% positive reviews among professionals, period" sound a bit like raving. Maybe not, fair enough.

@Brenton: Sorry I was brusque with you; you seem to have some good questions and points.

What I'm saying is that I'm irritated by the tendency of self-declared critics, many of whom are wannabe filmmakers, to substitute snark for journalism. ("So painfully excruciating to watch I literally could not stomach another movie.") People hurl exaggerated insults at a film and think they're clever. I have no respect for what this site calls "bitchy people." In my experience, they're miserable to be around because they're usually deeply jealous and angry at their life-circumstances. And they transfer that anger onto innocent bystanders; people who sacrifice and pour their lives, hearts, and souls into making a film for no money because they love the craft of filmmaking. And then some douchebag thinks it's funny to rip them apart for laughs and attention. People like that never left high school. It's just bullying. They are the ones who have no place in this industry; THOSE are the people I'm suggesting need to stay out of film school, because we have no room for pissers and moaners and whiners in this business.

But the real kicker is, if I respond in kind to the douchebags, I am considered to be "lashing out." That's bullshit. If somebody who's never even met me walks up and cockpunches me, I'm going to knock their teeth out. That's not me "lashing out." That's self-defense. If you're gonna dish it out, you better be prepared to eat it yourself, too.

This particular movie is not for everyone. It wasn't made for everyone. As one critic said, it's a film that dares to take a chance in a landscape of films that play it safe. Films like LIE are what indie critics should be praising and supporting, because they're all we have left in a world of $200 million committee-made CGI trash. Indies already have an uphill battle. You don't have to like a given indie film; but if you don't like it, shut the fuck up.

In this case, though, since the critical response has been so positive by any OBJECTIVE measure, it is flat-out defamation to suggest or imply that the movie has gotten bad reviews overall. It's just not true, and that type of dishonesty and libel is where I draw the line between having a legitimate right to your opinion, and simply deserving a punch in the face.

@Anna: My comment wasn't directed at readers of this site. I'm a reader of this site, too.

My comment was directed at the bitchy reviewers who post hyperbolic snark as if it were legit, well-written criticism... and then who act all offended when people serve their bullshit right back to them.

My comment was directed at the bitchy reviewers who post hyperbolic snark as if it were legit, well-written criticism

Apparently the British restaurant industry has problems with this, as each food reviewer tries to go out of their way to attract attention by incorporating ridiculously negative hyperbole, to the point where there's no way they could be talking about the actual food they ate. I think restaurateurs are hitting back with lawsuits claiming loss of business, not sure how that's working.

That should be interesting, looking forward to it. Drew, I am really enjoying your neo-noir retrospective, but I'm going to go through a couple of the classics before hitting the neos.

@Brenton: Precisely. Shinobi above expressed it well. And the interesting thing is, this is the only field in which people not only can get away with borderline-defamation, but they actually feel they're entitled to do so, because they think they're superior to the people making the films.

It's the equivalent of me getting a degree in "chemistry criticism" in college. Not being a trained chemist, mind you... chemistry "criticism." Then I go out and start writing about how so-and-so is a terrible chemist because his theories suck and he doesn't balance equations properly; all the while, remember, I have never actually balanced an equation in my life.

If I did that, I'd be sued for libel, and rightly so. But for some reason, people today think they can study film criticism and suddenly know more about film than professionals twice their age. It's ludicrous, and would be hilarious if they weren't actually interfering with our livelihoods, as Shinobi pointed out. If I trashed somebody's hard work and caused him to not collect a large enough paycheck to put food on his family's table that month, it would be considered terribly unethical of me and he'd likely win a suit against me.

Don't get me wrong, film criticism itself is a great industry. I have no beef with those who behave as responsible journalists; and if they either like or don't like a film, they state their opinion (key word) while recognizing at the same time that they are not experts by any stretch of the imagination. I don't know Drew, so giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume he is one of the responsible ones. It's the armchair quarterbacks like Prisco who are giving the criticism business a bad name and causing fimmakers to stop even reading reviews any more, because it's all just too mean-spirited and pitiful.

Chris,

With all due respect, most Cinema and Media Studies programs require we make films as well. I've produced shorts on 16mm and HD of varying length (a few minutes to 45 minutes) and while I quickly figured out feature filmmaking wasn't for me (both as a viable career and as a relatively stress free career), I have to say that it was a very enlightening process. Many of us have had our hands in the dirt at one point or another. On the critical side of the aisle, I've been publishing for roughly 10 years now, having started as an intern with the largest paper in Wisconsin at the age of 17. I've since been awarded the Otis Ferguson (one of our nation's first film critics) twice.

My point is, despite the venue of our criticism (which is a website, not a newspaper) many of us have qualifications that go above and beyond watching a lot of movies and reading a lot of reviews.

Prisco, while we may disagree greatly on film (Synecdoche, New York being a notable example), is no exception. You can call him an "armchair quarterback" but, despite the medium, the man has quite the resume. Furthermore, he isn't even reviewing "Yesterday was a Lie" here and, concerned with the reactions voiced here, he asked me to evaluate it. When he asked, I hadn't read this post and he hadn't told me about his reaction. He simply said, "You love noir, check this out."

So, I called a fellow noir lover (and fellow Ph.D. Cinema Studies colleague) and we watched it. You'll have to wait a couple days for the official account, but if you're the same person associated with the production following my Twitter, I assume you already know what side of the fence I'm on.

@Drew: Like I said, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. You sound like a reasonable person.

But anyone who says "so painfully excruciating to watch I literally could not stomach another movie. I went home, put a wet towel over my forehead, lamented my choice to become a film student, and refused to turn on anything electric for 50 hours" is just a lazy writer.

It's lazy because he (like many of his ilk) does not consider the impact of his words on others' lives and livelihoods. This film, for example, was made by a 501c3 non-profit arts cooperative. The producers, director, actors, DP, produciton designer, composer, etc. get paid a percentage of DVD sales and rentals. That IS their paycheck. It's disgusting that anyone feels entitled to harm others that way, just for the fuck of it.

But you streamed it, right? That costs you nothing -- it doesn't count toward your month's total rentals -- and the producers get no profit from it. That's how Netflix streaming works. And besides, the total value lost of renting a DVD and spending 80 minutes is a few bucks at most. If somebody really wanted their money back, write an email to the filmmakers and ask for it back... I bet they'd PayPal it to you.

But a bad review that's widely read can cost an already-hard-to-find indie film major loss, and thus harm everyone's families on this end. That's not theoretical; that's not hypothetical; that's REAL damage to people's lives.

Please bear in mind that no single reviewer is the arbiter of what is or isn't a good movie. If you said "This film isn't for me, but I can see that a lot of people like it because..." etc., then that would be one thing. But that's not what the harsh critics do... they tear a film down and feel proud of it. Why? What do you gain? I can see doing that to Michael Bay. But to a struggling indie film that people dedicated their hearts to, burned out their bank accounts, and donated years of time just for the love of the art? Really? REALLY?

If Prisco assigned this film to you because you're doing a noir retrospective, then there's your problem. This is a scifi film for scifi fans. People who like talky science films like What the Bleep or Primer or anything else that's just about people philosophizing (My Dinner With Andre, etc.). Noir fans probably won't like the film, and that's perfectly understandable. We don't market it to them. Scientists love the film. Philosophers, literary book critics, Star trek fans... they all love it. Noir fans? Usually not. It's not for you/them.

If you resent the fact that you spent your time on it, tell Prisco. But don't hurt innocent people.

It's lazy because he (like many of his ilk) does not consider the impact of his words on others' lives and livelihoods. This film, for example, was made by a 501c3 non-profit arts cooperative. The producers, director, actors, DP, produciton designer, composer, etc. get paid a percentage of DVD sales and rentals. ... that's REAL damage to people's lives ... But don't hurt innocent people.

You're damned right that we do not as reviewers take these things into account. That's because we're reviewing the art, not the artist. We might be doing nothing more than writing about movies here, but it's still journalism, and the commitment to the truth is at the heart of that pursuit. Did Hastings consider whether McChrystal's kids would have their feelings hurt if he went to press? Gosh, Woodward and Bernstein didn't stop for a second to consider the impact of their hurtful words on the long term quality of Checkers' kibble.

The attitude that you want from reviewers is precisely what is wrong with so much journalism in general, and movie reviewing in particular. If Michael Bay's next movie makes Shakespeare look like an amateur, I'll say it. And if your darling indie film that is the sole means of support for a hundred cancer stricken orphans is a fetid piece of artistic detritus, I'll say that too. Because if I don't, then my integrity as a journalist isn't worth a damn.

Unlike Drew and Prisco, I don't have jack for credentials. I couldn't tell you how many millimeters of whatsit a film uses on its key grip. Ah, but now I've lost you, I've categorized myself as one of those unwashed heathens unqualified to give their opinion on your precious work. You know, exactly how anyone who hasn't held elective office is disqualified from voting.

If you don't want us poor ignorant fools who haven't had the blessing of film school to be diddling all over your film's reputation, then there's a very simple solution. Don't release it. You don't get to ask the public to pay you money for your art whilst spitting in their faces at the notion that they might have an opinion uncultured by your hallowed list of qualifications.

@Steven: I don't you think understand my point. Anyone, anywhere, no matter how "unwashed" as you call it, is entitled to their opinion. It's a free country, with free speech.

But free speech does not entitle you to freedom of CONSEQUENCES from your speech. You are free to rip a film apart, insult it, and destroy people's lives. If you have legitimate basis for it, and are in the majority opinion, people might even take you seriously. If you're not, then the people you tore down are, in turn, free to kick your ass.

I don't see anyone named Chris on this movie on IMDB can we have some confirmation here?

Wow. Chris, I do NOT want reviewers/film critics to think about the filmmaker's feelings being hurt before writing. I want them to be honest.

@Drew

I enjoyed the Killing, but I'm going to have to read your review to see what I missed. The music was pretty jarring, and I thought the obstacles/problems that unraveled Johnny's plan were pretty simple and foreseeable, and he seemed like the smart type.

Since I can't comment on The Killing review thread, I'll have to do so here; sorry if this breaks up the critic discussion.

Like Darth, I found the narration jarring. It pushed me away from the characters, and too often I was trying to figure out the significance of what was said rather than paying attention to what was happening.

I certainly missed the mistakes made by the narrator, and didn't catch the significant development he missed. I imagine if I had caught them I wouldn't have known what to make of them. The narration never seemed particularly authoritative; it came across more like a bad news reel.

The music also put me off; at times I wanted it to just be quiet, so rather than adding tension it simply annoyed me.

I loved the ending, but I thought the fatalism could have been explored more; perhaps it was alluded to earlier in the film but I missed it.

Contrary to the review, I thought some of the obstacles were quite easily surmountable. After first coming across as quite smart, Johnny's lack of foresight and inability to adapt lead to his downfall. Was there really a pressing need to get on the plane? Wouldn't a simple drive out of town have sufficed, after all?

All that said, I really enjoyed the movie. It is beautifully shot, and some of the performances were excellent. Unfortunately the femme fatale's hair was a distraction (mostly because my girlfriend kept commenting on it) from her performance.

I appreciated how Kubrick played with the genre, employing melodrama perfectly and even humourously at times. I'm not sure I'll seek out the other one you mention, but I am looking forward to Double Indemnity and Strangers on a Train.

I recently watched YESTERDAY WAS A LIE and my review of should should up up on Netflix by now. Sorry to burst your bubble, Chris, but you guys made a shitty film. Aside from the visuals and the score, the remainder is below average. Good intentions were there, but you guys missed the mark this time around. Just admit it, suck it up, and do better next time!

Hello peeps. I watched The Vicious Kind today. I don't know WHAT Netflix was thinking by listing this as a comedy. Really good, really tense, made me want to have Adam Scott's babies. May watch again.

Also can this be a weekly feature? I'd love that.