Friday, October 26, 2012

Escape to The Movies: "Cloud Atlas"

See it. Love it or hate it, it's going to be one of the most important movies of the year.

Intermission: "Let's Watch 'The Iron Man 3' Trailer"

84 comments:

Evert said...

I've been experiencing weird things with Escapist videos.

Instead of getting the video I get a weird mashup one "starring" Yahtzee, Moviebob, Jim Sterling and others.

Anyone else had this problem?

Evert said...

(Wathed review on youtube)

So glad you gave this a positive review. I've been cautiously anticipating this for a while.

Tess Tickles said...

I have better things to do in 3 hours. Like play with my balls. The makeup was shit. The only good parts were Tom Hanks throwing a guy over a building and the part where the guy gets his legs scratched by a pussy.

Movie reviews like this remind me on why Bob faps furiously to Tree of Life.

So glad I walked out of this pretentious dribble

Anonymous said...

@Tess Cool story, bro.

Sarah Montgomery said...

OK, I wasn't gonna see it, but I'm sold on it now. Bloated Oscar-bait usually ends up pissing me off, but I guess anything this ambitious deserves a shot. If it bombs, we already know what kinda crap they're gonna replace it with next October.

Phil said...

It doesn't surprise me that a person like Bob Chipman would be ecstatic at a piece of shit like this movie.

This movie continues the tradition of yellowface but tries to pass it through by using "art" as a cover for it. It also tries to pass it by saying, "Hey, a black woman and a Asian woman are playing white women so it's okay". Except that "whiteface" has never been used against whites ever unlike yellowface, blackface and brownface have.

Bob Chipman is the typical hypocrite that is supposedly on the "left". They are these cowards that talk about how supposedly not racist they are and how racist everyone else is but don't actually question white privilege and white supremacy.

This is a man that thinks it is progress in this day and age for nonwhites if a great black actor gets casted in a role where he just stands around and has no more than 5 minutes of screen time but not in a movie where a nonwhite person could've been the lead like Argo.

Bob Chipman was told multiple times about Argo but purposely chose to never bring the issue up in his review. Instead he recommended people go see it and justified the whole thing claiming Affleck was chosen otherwise the movie would not have gotten made which is flat out untrue as it has been known that Affleck's career as an actor is a joke and white actors get casted as leads all the time even if they are unknowns.

So he continues this twisted view with this movie by not only recommending it but by actually going as far as saying that people should get Oscars for their work on yellowface. The makeup work on the white actors pretending to be Asians is so bad it would be laughable if we didn't have the sorry history that we do of that practice.

Funny how some whites, much like the directors of this movie, are more willing to jump into "color blindness" than to address white privilege and white supremacy and why these images like yellowface are disgusting no matter what trick is attempted to justify them. You see, so called "color blindness" only helps support any racism that exists but actually going out of your way to question white privilege and white supremacy would really be addressing the problem.

To underline that point, let's consider the fact that actor Jim Sturgess, who is in this movie and in yellowface, was previously the star of the movie "21".

"21" was a movie that was an Asian American story but instead the racist Hollywood producers (including Kevin Spacey) changed them to white with Jim Sturgess as the lead. Now Sturgess took it to the next level in this movie and is in full on yellowface. It's almost as if he and the whites working on this movie are rubbing it into Asians' face of how Sturgess as a white man can play anything he wants, even an Asian, but Asians can't even play themselves as leads in Hollywood.

Yet Bob praises this DISGUSTING FILTH and sees nothing wrong with it.

Bob acts so tough in his reviews and video segments when he tells you what to do and thinks he educates you on issues but when he is taken to task he tucks his tail between his legs and escapes to his little Mario fantasy world. Racism runs deeper than just name calling and Bob has proven that whether consciously (i.e. not wanting to put his white privilege in jeopardy) or subconsciously he harbors racist ideas and notions.

For insight on the hurt and damage that a movie like this causes with its use of yellowface here are two links written not by a white privileged person like Bob who have no interest in directly dealing with this problem unless it affects him (i.e. wanting The Avengers to get made) but by a person of color that has to deal with discrimination everyday even in a medium that he loves.

1)
http://www.racebending.com/v4/blog/cloud-atlas-conversation-yellowface-prejudice-artistic-license/

2)
http://www.racebending.com/v4/blog/jim-sturgess-cloud-atlas-yellowface/


Fuck this movie and anyone who supports it.

Anonymous said...

Hey Bob, how many innocents have to die under Obama's military policies before you admit he's as bad as Bush & Romney?

Fallen Angel said...

@Anonymous 4:27

Hey James, how about YOU answer a question? What's up with harassing Bob's colleagues at the Escapist on Twitter again? How's that promise to leave Bob alone looking?

Mr. Bevan, your obssession is becoming very worrisome and your behaviour is frankly deplorable. And cowering behind an anonymous username does not excuse such behaviour.

Moviebob said...

Guys I promise I don't have an ideology and I am a very logical person.

Starving kids in Africa?! LOL........ lets GO TO SPACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oops... did I type that out loud?

Anonymous said...

@ Phil

Amen brother. Good to see I'm not the only one who sees why Bob is so hypocritical.

Andrew said...

Hey BOB...if that IS your REAL name. I have a question for YOU.

Why haven't you ever publicly spoken out against Bowser being played by a human in the Super Mario Bros. movie? Oh, we all know why, of course. You're just fine with reptile actors being snubbed year after year and given stereotypical roles like dragons and stuff (and most of those roles have been taken over by CGI anyway). But a recognizable and popular reptile character with speaking lines, a dignified character? No, we couldn't be bothered to find a talented reptile actor to play him, we all know that "they can't really act", and that "the audience would never accept them". All because people like YOU sit by and say nothing as they're discriminated against.

You're so prejudiced, Bob. Everyone hates you and always will. You're like if cancer got raped by herpes and contracted AIDS from it.

Phil said...

That's right Andrew. A fictional reptile monster from a video game is equivalent to nonwhite people.

A million and one things can be said in response to your brain dead attempt at satire but the existence of your reply in and of itself is an insult against you.

@ "Moviebob" at 4:45 PM.

I laughed out loud. Brilliant reply. That whole stupid segment Bob did in one of his videos where he complained about wanting to go to space is one of the most blatant displays of white privilege that I have ever seen. The guy cares more about living out some corny and childish Star Trek fantasy than actually finding ways of solving the big problems that we have in this world especially those that nonwhites face everyday.

Andrew said...

@Phil

Your complaints about Hollywood's unwillingness to cast non-white actors (or even write non-white characters, or female character for that matter) in films is perfectly valid, and I'm happy to hear people raise complaints. But Bob is an internet critic, and not even one of the mainstream ones. Cluttering his blog with complaints alleging that he's racist because he doesn't share your outrage to the point that he's willing to make his own blog into your soap box is rude and pointless. He's not responsible for how Hollywood works and he has no responsibility to answer for them. Write a letter to major casting directors, production companies, the WGA, SAG, whatever. I understand that it's a lot easier to try to hijack a guy's blog, but it's also utterly meaningless.

Consider calming down and redirecting your (understandable, to a point) rage in a constructive direction. As is, you'd might as well be complaining about something as stupid as Bowser for all the good you're doing.

Rory said...

Umm...WOW!
Anyway meanwhile at the Colbert Nation, Tom Hanks took part in a brilliant Halloween bit to shamelessly promote his film career....and Cloud Atlas: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/420595/october-25-2012/stephen-ghoulbert-s-spooky-time-halloween-fun-guide---tom-hanks This alone made me want to see it, glad Bob also loved it, this looks way too ambitious to be labeled Oscar bait like King's Speech or *blech* Blind Side! And there's a jab at Argo too from a surprise guest so Phil here can feel vindicated.
So really, because Bob failed to address the elephant in the room from a recent review he's now earned ANOTHER mortal enemy for life!? Are we THAT juvenile here in the series of tubes? So I guess you and James are collaborate on a book called, "Hypocrite: How one guy on the internet we hate is ruining America, Vol 1"? And you two go off and promote it on Faux News with all the other reptiles and their one-dimensional agendas and their "We hate liberals" books?
Ah the internet, where having an opinion is a declaration of war.

Anonymous said...

Bob, I hate people as much as you do, and I guarantee that the idiots who will be "talking about this round' the water cooler will be the same idiots begging me to go see the movie "Crash"

Same shit different year.

Mark my words: in about 6 years, there will be a movie explaining how we are all connected not only through past lifetimes and skin color, but to aliens and/or animals and/or robots.

Anonymous said...

I was counting down the seconds to the point where Bob's review would provoke a several paragraph outburst from Phil up there. Sure enough, there he is like clockwork to achieve the monumental task of proving, once and for all, that Bob is a horrible person.

*rolls eyes*

Look, Phil, you're right about Hollywood's casting methods being deplorable re: minorities not getting opportunities. I'll say that again to make sure it sinks in. On the issue of whitewashing YOU ARE RIGHT, and your rage at Hollywood is entirely justified.

What is not justified is the attempt to paint Bob here as a racist. It's petty. It's juvenile. It's entirely unfounded. And even if you are right about Bob, whatever you're trying to prove, you accomplish nothing.

Andrew up there has some good advice for you. Do everyone a favor and take it. If you really care about fixing the whitewashing problem you'll put an end to this pathetic and pointless crusade against Bob and start directing your anger where it belongs.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that I find myself cringing more at the statements of people I largely agree with so much more than the people I do not agree with.

@Phil: Hollywood is absurdly wrong in its casting practices, in fact the only thing more absurd is how the people screaming the loudest about these practices are doing so at the movies that LEAST deserve to be screamed at, and at the people that have the least power over the casting in these movies.

Bob cannot do anything about the casting of hollywood movies. Nothing. It is completely pointless, and unfair at that, to berate him for something that is out of his control. Moreover of the 100's of movies that come out of Hollywood each and every year, most of which can easily be accused of white washed casting, why on earth is one of the few movies that has a fairly diversified world and cast THE ONE FILM everyone, both in the media and otherwise, are clinging too as a terrible whitewashing.

This is a bizarre world, when I am forced to disagree with the people I agree with far more than those I do not.

poparena said...

Hey guys, what's going on in this blog comment section?

Oh, blusterous declarations of holier-then-thou-isms? Just another day on the internet.

Anonymous said...

Ok so where are we?
First,some really ignorant guy called Moviebob a racist for next to no good reason, then the stalker I'm surprised hasn't gotten a restraining order claimed Moviebob was a hypocrite over an entirely unrelated issue. After that someone foolishly responded to a troll, and then some more trolling. Then someone made a clever joke to point out how racial arguments here are stupid in which the really ignorant guy actually made an angry reply that he was completely serious about, and then almost every comment afterwards was to tell Phil to shut up.

We have almost every form of hostility here folks, all we need at this rate is people needlessly begging for a new video format and then this comment thread will be the apocalypse.

Anonymous said...

At least this thread doesn't have any people here who claim to review other personalities on the internet when they really just do mediocre impersonations because they think it justifies their having not been hugged enough by their dad at night. I mean that's not even funny that's just sad.

Anonymous said...

Yep...that's it.

I officially can't stand The Avengers.

Ambitious and audacious!? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME!

Yes, superheroes from different films come together for one. Cool, I like it....buuutt.....oh, that's it?

Generic "Magic Object Could Destroy World So Battle CG Nameless Monsters In A Big City to Save It!" story, jokes that don't ALL work, some pretty bad dialogue in the opening hour, and lacking any surprise, suspense, or innovation.

A typical Hollywood flick that gets praised to no end because....eh....the characters look the way Bob wants them to. Well fuck me.

Anonymous said...

@ last anonymous

I complete agree with you. The one thing that has me at least a bit hopeful about Iron Man 3 is that it seems tonally and thematically (atleast the little we can infer from the trailer) completely different from The Avengers. Both of those things are fine by me.

The Avengers was fun the first time, but that was it. Then I saw it a second time and I was just plain bored out of my mind. It was a visually stunning mediocrity. Hears hoping the director of Iron Man 3 was able to wade through the hype and box office numbers and see the mess of mistakes The Avengers made and correct a few of them.

Lee Kalba said...

When trying something that's never been done in film, before (or any medium, but specifically movies in the case of The Avengers) it often helps to rely on well-worn tropes and formula so that it's easy to follow. Star Wars, for example. Because the concept of Star Wars had really never been done in a movie, before, the story relies heavily on tropes and formula that can be found in Greek epics.
When you're trying to combine characters and genres, that way, and keep it under 2 1/2 hours no less, it helps if you don't have to stop and explain the plot.
Sci-fi and fantasy have done this for decades. Think about the first installment in any series, like that: Harry Potter, Hellboy, The Dark Tower (at least the comic version), these are very basic plots, so that it's easy to keep up with the story, while you absorb the crazy world you're being introduced to.
Also, motherfuckers need to give up on the sock puppets. You're not fooling anyone.

Phil said...

Fascinating how so many "Anonymous" started posting one after another.

I'll reply to 6:41 PM and 7:39 PM.

You should do yourself a favor and read what I actually wrote. I'm not blaming Bob for the existence of these issues. I am taking Bob to ask for flat out refusing to bring them up when they are present and for actually supporting racist productions like this.

Bob is such a privileged individual that he'll make a big deal out of really significant bullshit that only a white guy with no real problems in the world would complain about. Like making not one but two videos on how much he really hated Green Lantern. Someone like this is clearly removed from the world in some way and the fact that he just simply ignores racism outright in movies shows just how much of an insensitive brat he is. The fact that he is told about these things ahead of time and he still ignores proves he is indeed a racist.

How on earth can a person like Bob who thinks they are educating people on racism in that half-assed video where he defended Idris Elba's casting in a really unimportant role actually tell people to go see a movie that brings back yellowface, blackface and all that through the thin excuse that they are also using nonwhites as whites in some segments? White have never had their identities as whites mocked via people dressing up as whites who are not white in Hollywood but things like blackface and yellowface has. Bob saw this irresponsible trash and thinks it deserves an Oscar for makeup! This in an era where Hollywood STILL refuses to hire nonwhites as leads but this guy thinks that the movie that has the same asshole who starred in the whitewashed 21 as a role in yellowface should get an Oscar.

It's jaw dropping just how out of whack Bob is on this issue but even more so how he just doesn't want to look into it. How utterly childish he is to ignore it like a coward so he can go back to playing his Mario games and read reviews from his white peers to pretend everything is okay.

You, and anyone else who is reading this, do yourself the favor and read those articles I put up on those links so you can understand what this issue actually is instead of a recommendation from a coward whose more concerned about whether or not Mario will be dressing like a raccoon in his new game than the injustice that continues to happen in Hollywood.

Again, fuck this movie and anyone who supports it.

Anonymous said...

Can people stop complaining about yellowface, this and that. I know it's wrong but I seem to remember they did get actual asians for some of the roles. It's just some werent. And Bob is no racist, for liking the movie. And futhermore Phil, fuck you, my dear sir, fuck you and kiss my ass. I support this movie and will watch it despite the whites playing asians. Get over it.

The Saarai'ari said...

Seriously, these trolls just can't get themselves a life. *Rolls eyes.*

Anyways, Bob, I just thought about something concerning that tattoo with an A on the back of Mandarian's neck. Since the organization AIM is supposed to have an appearance in Iron Man 3, perhaps that tattoo is somehow connected to AIM. Just a thought.

Aiddon said...

well...this got out of hand fast. I really wonder why so many assholes bitch at Bob. Y'know, other than the fact that he makes them feel ashamed of being assholes.

Anyway, I'll probably skip this as it really wasn't on my radar plus the Wachowskis have just NOT had a good decade.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 6:41 here.

Phil, I did read what you posted, but this still makes no sense, as I have to go back to the basic question of just exactly what you hope to accomplish here. For one thing, a quick click on Rotten Tomatoes reveals that nearly 100 critics (and counting) have given this film a positive review, making your obsession with Bob's video a little strange. Have you dropped scathingly negative comments under the other 90 odd reviews too?

For another thing, proving Bob to be a racist DOES NOTHING. It won't fix the problem, and Bob isn't even among the more prominent critics who have given positive reviews to this movie and others that did whitewashed casting.

So I'm left with the same unanswered questions. Why attack a critic when they are not the problem and have no power over the situation, and if you feel the need to go after a critic, why this guy of all people?

I reiterate my recommendation from earlier: get off the blogs and do something useful to fix the problem. Circulate a petition. Organize a boycott. Contact the studios yourself and demand that they change their practices before you pay to see their movies again. You won't be making anything better by continuing what you're doing here.

MovieBob said...

@Phil,

You are, as before, behaving in a manner unworthy of response. BUT, the issue you raise is a valid one (which I did address, if you'd bothered to watch through the credits.)

You are correct that white actors "substituting" as nonwhite characters has a singularly ugly history in Western film and theater culture, and as such I agree that the use of such is generally a bad idea and often a grotestquely insensitive (to say nothing of unnecessary) way to make a movie.

HOWEVER, there is an exception to every "rule," and this movie is in this case that very exception - not because it's good, or because of who made it, but because these use of cross-racial (and also cross-GENDER) casting is here being employed not to "replace" nonwhite actors (or even to "elevate" white ones) but rather to serve as a visual symbolism of the story's central themes of reincarnation and/or transmigration of consciousness.

The makeups are applied to the actors they're applied to and look the way they do so that we WILL recognize the actors from story to story, for the most part. For example: "Korean" Jim Sturgess is still unmistakably Jim Sturgess, because the whole idea is for us to juxtapose his role/existance from role to role - in this case, his character in the 1800s (where, BTW, Doona Bae appears as a caucasian woman) is a man who has his eyes opened to the evils of slavery; while his character in futuristic Korea is a freedom fighter trying to end a different kind of slavery. Having the same actor in both roles allows the audience to draw an extra layer of subconscious paralell between the two stories without otherwise spelling it out.

Also, it should be noted that the future Korea depicted in the film is not populated exclusively by Koreans - there are other races mulling about, and while Sturgess and Hugo Weaving appear to be intended taken as Korean men Hugh Grant and Keith David appear in more subtle makeups that clearly suggest mixed-race heritage. An even further future depicts a world where an advanced race of dark/tan-skinned humans (black actors looking lighter, white/asian actors looking darker) are viewed as godlike figures by a race of primitive caucasians (NOT exclusively played BY caucasians.)

I share the general dismay of others for the poor representation of nonwhite actors in Hollywood movies, but what you're looking at here isn't "blackface" or "yellowface" precisely because these characters are not being made to represent races but rather to represent "souls."

That's the irony here: The film is a nearly 3 hour treatise on race and gender being largely-arbitrary societal contructs; and it's being called "racist" because people refuse to "read" it on anything other than a surface level.

Phil said...

Funny you accuse me Bob of supposedly not paying attention to everything you addressed in your review when you have just demonstrated YOU have not paid attention to what I have addressed in my first post.

You see it just so happens that this entire argument of yours I have already addressed in the second paragraph of my initial post:

"This movie continues the tradition of yellowface but tries to pass it through by using "art" as a cover for it. It also tries to pass it by saying, "Hey, a black woman and a Asian woman are playing white women so it's okay". Except that "whiteface" has never been used against whites ever unlike yellowface, blackface and brownface have."

That's basically a response to everything you wrote there in a nutshell before you even wrote it.

I then continued to address it further in regards why this is such a flawed concept as it is inappropriate in the era we live in:

"Funny how some whites, much like the directors of this movie, are more willing to jump into "color blindness" than to address white privilege and white supremacy and why these images like yellowface are disgusting no matter what trick is attempted to justify them. You see, so called "color blindness" only helps support any racism that exists but actually going out of your way to question white privilege and white supremacy would really be addressing the problem."

You talk about Jim Sturgess as an example when not only have I already mentioned him before but also continued to stress why this is so insensitive:

"To underline that point, let's consider the fact that actor Jim Sturgess, who is in this movie and in yellowface, was previously the star of the movie "21".

"21" was a movie that was an Asian American story but instead the racist Hollywood producers (including Kevin Spacey) changed them to white with Jim Sturgess as the lead. Now Sturgess took it to the next level in this movie and is in full on yellowface. It's almost as if he and the whites working on this movie are rubbing it into Asians' face of how Sturgess as a white man can play anything he wants, even an Asian, but Asians can't even play themselves as leads in Hollywood."


You literally argued with points I've already tackled when I first posted. Did you even bother to actually read what I wrote or did you skim it and went on auto pilot in your response?

This movie is no exception to anything. You as a white person and your white peers have no right to declare this is an "exception" due to your unwillingness to acknowledge your white privilege and the fact you only tackle racism in movies unless it benefits you (e.g. wanting Avengers to be made).

I know for a fact that you didn't even bother to read the links I provided. You are a person who constantly sees yourself in some form represented in movies and television so of course you can't understand but the fact you refuse to even look into it is what is really troublesome. Nonwhites can't even play themselves in movies as leads and you don't even care to mention it in a review like Argo even after it was told to you more than once. All you had to do was bring it up and yet you shrug your shoulders like you don't know what you could possibly do about it. Yet if some white geeky fantasy of yours gets ruined we'll get a whole video series dedicated to it.

The fact that white film makers are more willing to cast white man Jim Sturgess to play an Asian not once but twice (and one of those times in yellowface) in major movies which is more times than most Asian American actors ever get highlights how bad the situation is in Hollywood and why the manner which this movie was done is insensitive and just plain wrong in this day and age.

Once again, fuck this movie and anyone who supports it.

Anonymous said...

You heard it, everyone: Bob Chipman supports blackface/yellowface when he thinks it serves an "artistic" purpose.

Chipman, you are a WORTHLESS FUCKING HYPOCRITE.

Anonymous said...

@Phill well i liked it,thus i'm racist!NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nixou said...

Bob wants to send more people in space

There are stars on the confederate flag

Therefore, Bob is secretly a klansman

Man, I love these games of fake logic

Alexa said...

Um, the whole point of having certain actors in different races, was to put an emphasis on re-incarnation. I seriously doubt the creators are racists, or lacking in tolerance, since I think it was done all to emphasize the re-incarnation aspect to it. I think it all goes back to intent, and the intent does not appear to be malicious is all I am saying. Also if they are using stereotypes to portray characters of different races, then that's when you should be offended. But as it stands they look like they are playing characters with their own personalities. Again its a tough issue but for the re-incarnation aspect in the film to be understood I think they had to go that way.

And to everyone who says this movie looks like pretentious crap, I have to say that it feels like any time a movie tries to deal with anything with deeper ideas about the world is always considered pretentious. I guess I am saying it's okay for a movie to be ponderous and philosophical, if the makers make this sentiment to come across as genuine. Don't knock it just because it does it in the first place. Its okay for a movie to have a deeper sub-text, and to muse about life. Its only when it feels shoe-horned in or forced that it becomes obnoxiously pretentious, kind of like with Southland Tales.

Elessar said...

Christ on sale Phil, have you considered taking a breath?

I'm serious here, I'm honestly worried about you, and Bob (I don't want you or James going all Mark David Chapman on him). Before I move on, I have to ask, Bob do you have something special about you that attracts these weirdos?

Anyway.

Phil, I'm going to explain something to you that I think has escaped your notice: You are accomplishing nothing here. You are screaming at one film critic who liked these movies, despite your perceived racism. Not the most famous one, nor the only one to give both these movies good reviews. In fact, go to Roger Eberts site, he liked both Argo and Cloud Atlas. I think he gave them both 4 Star Reviews. So why not bitch at him, he's much more well known. He even posted his Cloud Atlas review in the blog, so people could leave comments. Go bitch at him, he's white and moreoever he's old, so he's obviously a bastion of white privilege (every time you say that I can that quote from Inigo Montoyo in my head. You know the one).

But you have chosen to scream at a film critic employed at a geek site, who mostly likes to talk about geek things, who was hired to talk about geek things and therefore, MOSTLY TALKS ABOUT GEEK THINGS, not race things. You also comment on his blog, not the site itself. Both of these things not only limit your audience to people like me who read his blog (who are LONG since sick of you) but you choose to do it in the most cartoonish, hyperbolic and silly way possible, which makes you hard to take seriously. Instead of calmly stating your opinion and what could be done about it, you choose to scream accusations of racism at a film critic. Firstly, this kind of cheapens your (admittedly valid) point. And secondly, it makes Bob less likely to respond nicely, or restate your point in his videos. People don't like being yelled at, especially when they've done nothing to really deserve it. It makes them defensive, and since you're on the other end of a computer screen, he has no reason to respond to you or do anything to please you. In fact, you strike me (and i'm sure him) as one of those unpleasable types. He mentions what you say, and you get pissed at him some more.

You have a legitimate point to make, but accusing a film critic of racism is not helping anything, even if it was a well known one. He has no control over the movies and he has not shown a large power to sway the masses to rioting.

I liked Argo, and I gave it a good review, so unless you have some person grievance with Bob, come harass my blog too (actually don't, I'll just ignore you). I'm going to try and see Cloud Atlas this weekend, because it looks interesting and if I like it, I'll give it a good review. That's how criticizing films work. Unless the race issue becomes a problem WITHIN THE FILM you don't typically bring it up (IE, when the Muslim aspect became uncomfortable for me in Taken 2).

I say again: The issue you bring up is a valid one, but you need to calm down and state it more calmly. Minorities need more movies devoted to their stories and about their issues, but screaming at internet film critics is not going to get it done, it's just going to piss the film critic off. Make your own blog and make posts about it, don't hijack someone else's. It makes you look like a coward, since you're hiding behind an anonymous, and too afraid to force your articles to stand on their own merits, so you post them in the comments of more famous blogs, where you know people are going to read it.

Oh and point: Those two articles about yellowface were written before the movie was released. So I take them with a grain of salt.

Oh and about 21? No one REMEMBERS 21. No one LIKED 21.

I think that's about it.

Kthanid said...

You know what, you people crying that the movie is racist? How about you just fraking well drop it and accept the fact that the rational adults among us can make up our own damn minds on the movie and can discern the difference between art and racism .

Also, and this just occurred to me, do you really honestly think Lana W. who just came out publicly as a Transwoman would put out a blatantly racist movie? I mean seriously do you think she wants that kind of press on top of everything else?

The Freckled 1 said...

#Phil

I don't want to be fodder for your next "I made the longest post so I win" response, but you clearly are just rooted in this belief, and any attempt I have of trying to stop you will be like trying to move a boulder with my finger.

The issue of whitewashing in film is valid, especially given America's racist past. I have read ALL of your posts. However, I disagree with you in that you bring people like Bob to be devil eyed klan members, who are conspiring against all minorities. This is, as Yatzee once put it, "pants on head retarded."

The sad truth is that "Hollywood," as we like to think of it, is just in a rut of people casting more for name recognition than racial diversity. The whole Jim Sturges casting in 21 was NOT because of mustache twirling producers looking for ways to be even more racist, but saw a film and saw an actor who had just starred in "Across the Universe" and knew it would be a big draw.

I don't think its a black and white issue of racism as you like to put it. Are films unfairly cast, YES! But when a film like Cloud Atlas comes along, and it gets a 0/10 from you just because it deals with the themes of reincarnation by using methods that were used in negative ways many, MANY years ago is weak. It would be like saying that Star Wars is a terrible movie because it uses special effects that are similar to Plan 9 From Outer Space.

Anonymous said...

The lack of ability to comprehend another's argument shows one thing. That the person who is screaming has no other purpose then the desire to be loud. Not heard, just loud. To scream it to the heaven as loud as they possibly could.

It is very easy to criticize a film on a surface level, simply because it means people like Phill do not have to put a lot of thought into it. Which they clearly are not. This type of activity makes actual arguments against whitewashing seem invalid.

Phill you seem to have a very valid problem with Hollywood. As a person by the name of Bob Chipman has repeatedly addressed, the industry is run by old white dudes, and he has never once( to my knowledge) said that is a good thing.

Of course cherry picking is what trolls like you do best. You have no agenda then to scream to the heavens that this movie is garbage, which just makes it seem like one thing. That is, that you have an agenda. And you do, you have an agenda and you are taking it out on a person you do not know, but hey you hear them on the internet so that is good enough right?

You complain about Bob wanting to go to space, but you know I am just gonna guess that he does not plan on fueling said rocket with the bodies of the starving children of Sudan.

You seem so determined to make a point, but you are failing to do so by resorting to personal attacks. Thinking that this movie promotes white washing is a perfectly valid thought process, attack the movie, not someone you do not even know.

Why? Because it is pointless attacking Bob is not going to make the directors of this movie change it, actually raise this type of anger against the movie.

The notion that you say, "fuck this movie and anyone who supports it" shows your immaturity in matters like this.

People have different perceptions of movies, everyone does. Verbally attacking somebody for not agreeing to your perception of a movie is being blind to discussion.

Resorting to personal attacks in a discussion is a tactic used by bullies, children, and politicians. Rise above that and actually form an intelligent response to Bobs thesis.

Hate speech is never justified.

C2 said...

Am I the only one who thinks of this everytime I see Phil's name?

http://tinyurl.com/philface

Anonymous said...

Bob's a racist.

Anonymous said...

Bob's a hypocrite

Anonymous said...

Bob's a narcissistic, condescending, cynical fuckwad.

JamesT said...

Wow, the ass-backward logic by some people in the comments is astounding.

Using elaborate make-up effects to make a resounding thematic point about how we are all essentially the same and how we shouldn't differentiate each other because of race, is far removed from the blackface make-up used in "Birth of a Nation." Anyone who calls "Cloud Atlas" (or Bob) racist is HILARIOUSLY missing the point of the film.

Phil said...

Again, I must point out how interesting it is that this post has gotten so many "Anonymous".

I'm only going to give the 4:43 AM one an answer.

4:43 AM, you don't know what you are talking about. What I write about Bob is not baseless. Bob's behavior says more than whatever he posts. He could've mentioned the Argo issue in his review as it was brought to his attention. He purposely did not and that review even came up short in the running time than his usual reviews. That's worse than whatever bad thing you think I am writing.

The fact that one of your responses to my "activity" was that it "makes actual arguments against whitewashing seem invalid" says a lot about you.

As far as this "activity" of mine, someone posted this link in a previous post. I think it serves you and others that think like you well.

Read it:
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/the-tone-argument/

@ The Freckled 1
You say that you think the issue of whitewashing is valid but then go on to prove you don't understand it all by trying to lessen the blame of the movie "21" and its whitewashing. Yes, what occurred in that movie was racist. The same thing has been going on for decades in Hollywood is not accidental. Your excuse of Sturgess being casted is exactly the same shallow arguments used by racists in Hollywood as a cover to deny nonwhites the same opportunities as whites.

The fact that you did exactly what Andrew did by making a totally inappropriate analogy proves you don't understand this issue.

@ JamesT
Are you related to Bob? Because you did exactly what he did. You argued by using a point that I already talked about in my first reply here. It's not hard to miss because I even repeated them after Bob replied to me.

Talk about, "HILARIOUSLY missing the point".

Nixou said...

"Anyone who calls "Cloud Atlas" (or Bob) racist is HILARIOUSLY missing the point of the film."

Actually, I think that anyone doing this is not so much missing the point but playing dumb because it makes them feel like daring contrarian rogues.

Nathan said...

@Phil
"White have never had their identities as whites mocked via people dressing up as whites who are not white in Hollywood"
Actually this has happened quite a bit, mostly for comedic effect. Eddie Murfy has done it for SNL, Dave Chappelle has done it for his show, and "White Chicks" was basically that but for an hour and a half.
The problem I have with your logic is that regardless of intentions or presentation actors can not portray a race different from themselves. But following that logic couldn't one make the same argument for actors portraying transgendered, mentally handicapped, or physically disabled? Also should the same be said for actors portraying mixed raced characters too? Actors portray people that they aren't, that is kinda their job. Now I haven't seen the movie, but it seems like you haven't either. But the movie doesn't seem the the minstrel show that you say it is.
Also your whole thing about the movie 21 doesn't apply here. Sure the have the same actor but it doesn't mean anything. You have a non-fiction movie vs. a fiction movie.
Also this whole trying to prove Bob is a racist or the worst person in the world just because he likes this movie is bullshit. Cut it out. To say that Bob is racist in the same way one would describe the KKK is intellectually dishonest and detracts the conversation. You could possibly argue him being racially-insensitive or oblivious but actually racist. Cmon man.

Phil said...

@ Nathan
You're limiting the scope of that one sentence by not applying it in the full context. If you read everything I wrote and still don't get it I suggest you do research on yellowface, brownface and blackface and you'll see that Eddie Murphey and Dave Chappelle dressing up as white people is in no way an equivalent. Also, White Chicks was a story about blacks dressing up as white girls. It was not a movie where the white characters are being represented by blacks dressed up as whites. Even if it was, it still doesn't come close to the rotton history that things like blackface and yellowface has.

Transgendered, mentally handicapped, and physically disabled people are in no way the same as race and ethnicity.

The reason why the use of yellowface, blackface, etc... in Cloud Atlas is wrong is because we are not living in an appropriate time for that to be used again. White supremacy is still in effect.

I mentioned "21" for two reasons. One, it is an example of white supremacy in Hollywood that I have brought up. Two, both movies have Jim Sturgess who in both these movies played Asians and has gotten opportunities in Hollywood that Asian male actors have not gotten. Him doing this is simply out of line.

Finally, you and others that think like you in regards to me describing Bob the way I am is naive. It's naive because you have a very simplistic notion of what racism is. Racism is not limited to a klan member. There are people that engage in racism everyday but have never worn and will never wear a klan outfit. Besides, I never described Bob in the same way a klan member would be described.

Anubis C. Soundwave said...

@ Phil: Speaking as a "non-white": please *shut up*.

Most white males in the US aren't racist.

Hollywood movie execs, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and a *minority* of white males in BOTH major political parties: racist.

White American males at large: *apathetic*. They don't care about race in movie casting.

And you know what? Neither do most "non-whites" at large care what color Aang was in The Last Airbender movie and other films.

A good film is a good film.

However, the "whitewashing" issue in Hollywood is a problem. Do you know how to solve that problem?

My suggestion: get a free Blogger account and convince the American public that they should care. That will shake both white male apathy and "non-white" apathy.

Screaming at MovieBob and demanding that he use *his* blog/soapbox to rant on *your* pet peeve will not solve the problem. (I offer this same advice to "James the Anonymous" as well.)

And, as proof that anyone can create a free blog, I submit this: http://acsoundwave.blogspot.com.

There you go: a perfect forum to *end* the whitewashing of non-white roles. You don't have to be frustrated by (your perception of) MovieBob's "silence" on the issue *anymore*.

The Almighty Narf said...

Reminded me a lot of John Lennon's I am The Walrus in that I think it would be best described as "ironically-pretencios". Desperately trying to look and sound like it's saying something profound, yet fully self-aware that it's just spouting gibberish.

Anonymous said...

Bob, I know that allowing only registered users to comment didn't work out so well the last time.

However, have you considered having comment moderation, so that the comments appear only after you approve of them?

The off-topic stupid being posted constantly on your blogs too painful to read.

Gospel X said...

@anonymous 11:10 PM - I don't think that having the comments moderated would solve the problem, at least not for Bob. We wouldn't see them, but anything unapproved by him will be met with multiple follow-up posts about censorship. Being a critic in some part of the public sphere, I'm sure he can handle some of it...but I'm sure he doesn't want to be overloaded by things just because he rejected a comment.

Anyway, I'm starting to think that "James" and "Phil" are the same person. Maybe in the future everyone should just ignore comments left by him/her/it. It won't make the person stop commenting, but it will remove some power from it. The more people respond, the more opportunity the person has to get attention.

On a more appropriate note, I liked the review, Bob. And I also enjoyed the movie. It was definitely ambitious and had a lot to say. It wasn't the perfect movie, but it kept me engaged and made me think. What I really enjoyed was the fact that the six different time periods really could all have easily been their own 1.5 hour films. My wife and I will definitely be watching it again in the future...but probably only when we can watch it again at home.

FinalCupil said...

@Moviebob

Okay Bob, seriously. You have to do something about these comments. There is a reason moderating comments exists on other sites and it is to stop shit like this. Honestly, why are these comments even enabled still? No intelligent discussion happens here anymore. For every semi-interesting comment posted, we get a dozen anonymous trolls, James being a creepy, narcissistic psychopath (redundant), and now Phil, who somehow manages to make people, many of whom actually agree with him, tell him to shut the fuck up.

Bottom line Bob, either disable comments here or start moderating them. You are actively driving away your audience by not doing it.

Drake said...

Honestly, I have to agree with FinalCupil. I understand you need to keep things from appearing you favor one side or the other, but I come to your blog for your opinion on a subject and not James, Phil, or any one else, I have no problem if they were showing respect or constraint with their opinions, but they aren't. If they want to be this disrespectful, they have the option to create their own blog and find others that agree with them that way.

John said...

These comments that are rushing in either defending or condemning Bob make me very sad.

The man has a right to his opinion, and the right to voice his opinion. If you don't like, fine you have that right to. Getting as hateful as these comments? No. That's just not right.

Seriously, comment sections like these? They make me weep for the human species, and this one in particular has managed to single-handedly lower my hope for Humanity.

If I were in the position of half of the commentators on here, I would feel ashamed of myself. I feel dirty just typing this much.

Razmere said...

Wow. This seems like a very interesting movie to say the least. Now with your review I'm gonna put this on my "I should probably watch this" list.

Also, what are your thoughts on the new Silent Hill movie? It's a guilty pleasure of mine but I was curious to hear your opinion on the flick.

Dustin Hiser said...

Well, I'd like to talk about the movie, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

I second some kind of way to moderate the comment section. For fucksake, there's over fifty comments here and almost none of them are actually discussing the movie. I was hoping for some kind of parsing together of all the clues and threads. There's so much to chew on.

And all anyone can talk about is nonsense the controversy surrounding the makeup, how much Bob sucks, and attacking of the trolls. It's beyond old.

Phil said...

Man and I thought the silly accusations that me and "James" are the same person were desperate. Now some have dug even lower by demanding that comments be "moderated" (read: censored) because someone is questioning white supremacy in Hollywood and is calling out someone on their hypocrisy who claimed he was against such things in Hollywood. It's about a couple of steps up the petty ladder beyond calling someone a "troll" just cause you don't like what they say.

Just goes to show you that if really question white supremacy directly, especially in these communities, people will call for you to be silenced.

Oh and Anubis C. Soundwave... you don't know what you are talking about. At all. Not one bit of it. The only way that a nonwhite person would ever argue that, "There's little racism to no racism in this day and age and most nonwhites don't care that they are constantly being screwed out of opportunities in Hollywood" was if you are some kind of shut-in or what you meant by "nonwhite" is that you are an alien. Meaning you just crash landed from outer space. And if you did just crash land from outer space you might want to get in touch with Bob. He wants the chance to go to space just so he can fuck green women just like privileged white man Captain Kirk did in Star Trek.

Phil said...

Yeah, forget you, Soundwave. All non-whites who don't agree with me are aliens! My race trumps your race because my opinion is right!

Phil said...

Hopefully it's obvious to most but just in case there are some that may be easily fooled, the "Phil" from 5:40 PM is not the same "Phil" as I from all the other posts on this page.

This happened before in one of the previous entries I posted on. It's really telling how desperate some will go to try and discredit me.

FinalCupil said...

Ah, the good old "censorship" card. Censorship has to do with what the government tells us we can and cannot say. The fact that we have the FCC forbidding certain language on TV is a testament to that. Still, the First Amendment pretty much allows people to say just about whatever they want-with a few exceptions-and the government can't do anything to stop it. This is the reason people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are allowed to spew their verbal diarrhea and get away with it.

However, just because someone can say whatever they want without government interference, does not mean everyone else has to listen to them nor does it mean they can force people to listen to them. For example, if I invite you into my house, and then you start insulting me and, in general, start being an ass I can tell you to leave and if you refuse I can physically throw you out or just call the police. See, you are allowed to say whatever shit you want, but it is still MY house and I don't have to listen to you in MY house.

This is Moviebob's blog (house) and he does not have to listen to or acknowledge anyone posting here and can block people from posting-though blogspot makes that more difficult then other formats-if he so chooses. The fact that he even acknowledges some of the terrible posters here is either incredibly good of him or just incredibly masochistic of him.

The one true Phil said...

Don't listen to the Phil from 5:40, or 6:50 pm. I am the one true Phil, all the others are impostors. Shame on Thee, faker Phils!

The Almighty Narf said...

... When the fuck did this place turn into 4chan!?

FinalCupil said...

@The Almighty Narf

Yes, sadly it has. There needs to be moderation around here, but who knows if that will happen.

Robert Chen said...

Seriously, I keep hearing, "Too much going on in this movie, it's a bad movie." The same community that rated the Grindhouse, which is two directors wanting to make bad movies for the sake of making bad movies, higher than Cloud Atlas. What?

3 hours is too long? Yall having a good time with just about any movie made from a book? 6 stories that needs each other, that averages 30 minutes per story. Each story had 30 minutes to make intro, character development, story development, rising, climax and ending. This movie was too long?

I didnt get everything in the movie, and I would like to see it again, but I'm kinda short on movie, but seriously tho. Unless the movie was just badly made to the point that it's hard to understand, okay, that's a fault. But if it's hard to understand because it covers a lot of ground, it's not the movie makers' fault. Are they going to do a half ass job at telling an epic so the audience can get all the message? No, you tell the epic. Hell, if they did a half ass job, then the author of the book wouldnt have agreed to let them do it. They even take the time to pace it for everyone, seriously, the passion of the Christ, a movie about a holy figure getting tortured for a long time got a higher rating than this movie. You guys...

It's always like this, any movie that covers some significant amount of grounds with people's brains always get the whole, "well that was too complicated, so it's a bad movie."

Physics text books covers a lot of grounds, fucking minutephysics videos cover a lot of grounds (Henry does it in less than 10 minutes), are we gonna shame a movie that may have meant to be view at least twice? Sometimes stories, topics, etc requires you to glance at it a few times. Why is it that these stories should just not be covered or modified to be on the big screen?

I'll tell you what people hate about it, the ideas, concepts were just foreign to them. People didnt hate the Matrix, but the brain in a jar concept is Western, people here at least have heard about it. But when we're talking about cycles, returning, consequences from 1 time to another, a lot of these ideas arent familiar to the Christian/Western paradigm of people living 1 life and 1 chance.

Shit we see this cycle in history, where despite history being the subject that should allow us to do better, we dont really. We continue to have wars, continue to oppress others, continue do selfish things. This theme of cycles and karma, it's not that hard to understand.

Phil said...

Nice try, FinalCupil but no cigar.

Fact is, all my comments here are on topic. I was talking about Cloud Atlas the entire time. Everything I said had to do with Cloud Atlas. Even Bob himself replied directly to my comments because it had to do with this movie.

The issue here is that you and those like you just don't like what I am saying. Even more laughable is you projecting yourself onto Bob telling Bob he must "moderate" (aka censor) comments just because YOU don't like them.

Wanna how this is hilarious? I remember seeing responses in the comment section in this very blog page on one entry that actually tried to argue that slavery wasn't as bad as some say it was. I sure as hell didn't agree with that but I didn't post there to do the same you and people like you are trying to do here by pressuring Bob to "moderate" because of me. Did anyone come in and pressure Bob to "moderate" comments then? Nope. But I make some comments that you don't agree with that have to do with the racism that so called movie fans refuse to talk about and Bob must censor with an iron fist?

You want to talk about Cloud Atlas? Go ahead. I was the entire time. Your problem is you and others like you don't like the topic I was bringing up about it. You see, when you bring up white supremacy many people don't like it if you go at it brutally and honestly. That's why so many whites like movies like The Help. It deals with racism in such a dumbed down way that it doesn't question white supremacy at all because it makes the false case that most whites were not racist even in that era. It was just a very few amount of them that ruined it for everyone. Also, it was a white savior movie and lots of whites really like that kind of movie.

And speaking of white savior movies, last year it was The Help and this year it's Django Unchained.

Should I be surprised Bob really is looking forward to it and doesn't think there is any problem that it's yet another white savior movie like Hollywood produces every year?

"But... but how could slaves have done anything without whites at the time?"

There were hundreds of slave riots at that time that had nothing to do with whites. Didn't matter to Tarantino though. And with so many people ignorantly defending the yellowface and blackface in Cloud Atlas despite us not living at a time when we are past the racism that those things helped continue you can be sure as hell that many misinformed people will also defend Django Unchained in all its white savior glory.

And anyone that thinks otherwise, well you are apparently just some kind of "troll".

FinalCupil said...

@Phil

Seriously dude, why are you doing this? Why do you cherry pick the arguments that allow you to stay mad at everyone and constantly try to start a fight? I have actually said in previous posts to you-from other articles you have replied to-that I agree with you. You are just going about it the wrong way. Why do you not listen? Myself, and others, have said that you should start a blog and get the message out there. I am being sincere, not trying to get you to go away. Why do you want to verbally punch everyone that actually agrees with and tries to talk to you? There are pro-active ways to approach the problem of whitewashing in Hollywood, why are you going about it this way?

Honestly, you have never answered these questions when many other posters have asked them.

So, I will ask them again:

Why don't you start a blog?

Why aren't you being pro-active about this problem (and it is a very real problem)?

Please, just ask yourself those questions and give an honest response. Or, you can chose not to answer them, but you are only hurting yourself. I would actually like to help solve this problem, but you have to make the first move and provide a real solution.

God, I hope I am making any sense.

Anonymous said...

Phil, the petty pompous pretentious petulent and pedantic purveyor of purely puerile and pathetic piss,
pustules, pestilence, and palilalia upon the populace. Piss off you paranoid parasitic pedophage!

FinalCupil said...

@Phil

And I just got through reading your last diatribe toward me and "others like me". I can only assume you are implying I am racist even though you know nothing about me, but you are very angry so I will take the abuse I guess?

The moderating comments thing is more in regards to James then it is to you or anyone else really. He is the one that started the derails and just pointless thread shitting, not to mention posting after just about any of Bob's posts cheer leading Gray Johnson. Phil, I only see you post when it ties in with your anger at Hollywood and whitewashing.

Let me repeat, whitewashing is a BAD thing. It is a very terrible and disgusting thing. We are on your side, stop with the attacks. You have a right to be angry, just stop directing your anger at random posters on the internet, direct your anger at the actual problem. Please.

Aiddon said...

apparently Cloud Atlas was a financial bomb at the box office. Guess the Wachowskis continue a lukewarm decade with the exception of V for Vendetta

Phil said...

HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED

asdfasgd said...

@aiddon: Did anyone really expect it was going to make its money back on initial release? This was one of those movies that get made because someone influential decided this was a story that deserved to be viewed through the visual medium. Every so often an influential director or actor gets there dream project made (despite the potential losses) due to their industry clout. My guess is the Wachowskis will be doing something potentially very profitable for Warners very soon and this was kind of what they got in return. Just my guess.

I am sure it will ultimately make money though; in its afterlife as a cult classic (which it inevitably will be).

JamesT said...

@Phil

I get your anger towards whitewashing, and to be honest it's a valid point to bring up, even in the case of "21" and "Argo."

But you seem to be aiming your anger in the wrong place. The use of the makeup effects in Cloud Atlas is not whitewashing in any sense of the term. It's use as an artistic statement absolutely protects it from the kind of criticism you suggest, ESPECIALLY since the film is 100% ON YOUR SIDE in this argument. Getting angry at Cloud Atlas is basically shooting yourself in the foot. Saying "Fuck this movie and anyone who supports it" makes you seem as if your looking at this issue through a very narrow lens, despite your good intentions, and it just comes across as childish.

Plus, even with you valid criticism of "Argo" and "21" your viewing the issue as a intricate part in the film's quality, when in reality, is only a small issue with the film. Yes, it's unfortunate, those films did contain a certain amount of whitewashing, but your issues with the production choices of the film should be directed towards Hollywood producers, and it doesn't ultimately have much baring on the overall criticism of the film. Whitewashing is a problem, but those who enjoy the films are not. The film's quality will be subjectively judged on the merit beyond this issue. Saying that the people who enjoy these films are bad people is absolutely ridiculous, because it's the producers who deserve the scrutiny.

Hollywood will evolve with time, and it's probably because of people like you who are fighting the good fight, but direct your anger at the right people. Bob and others who enjoy these films are not who you should be getting angry over.

Cam said...

I could point out that its not just whites who get cast in roles that belong to another race/group I mean look at Memoirs of a Geisha that movie is set in Japan about a Japanese girl yet was played by a Chinese woman (Ziyi Zhang. does that take away from the story? Not really. Is it still a good story. sure. Maybe its because I live in the real world and don't spend every second preaching on some stupid blog. that i enjoy movies and books and watching my gf play Mass effect that i dont sweat the small stuff. i just enjoy the story. But what the fuck do i know

Cam said...

@ ALL!
I do have a crazy theory if anyone cares to hear it?

I'm sure its BS but wouldn't it be funny if that obnoxious PHIL guy was just Movie BOB fucking with us. Saying a bunch of stupid shit to get us to comment on his dumb blog and create discussion.

Oh Phil i mean Bob ;-)YOU SLY DEVIL YOU. you got us good.

From now On Phil I will address you as Philbob. Im on to you buddy :-)


@ Philbob stop be such a racist all the time. its rude

Andrew said...

Just got back from the movie. Overall: It was better than I thought it was going to be.

It is a long movie, and it feels it, but I think the six plot structure and overall fast pace helps that out a lot. The only issue I had with the story was that they weren't tied together satisfactorily; the bridges are very faint, such that the stories REALLY don't have anything to do with each other than a passing reference or two in each.

The makeup was also pretty bad at times. The "Yellowface" worked OK (kinda) for Sturges but just looked silly as hell on the others. Warner Oland looked more convincing, sadly. East Asian people don't all have tiny, slanty eyes, you know? The movie's one Asian actress' eyes are huge, why didn't you take a cue from that? Hugh Grant's alternate character's makeup was pretty silly too. It may win Best Makeup for quantity, but I wouldn't give it to them for quality.

That said, these are nitpicks. The production values were impressive, and the cast did a good job for the most part. Jim Broadbent was as fantastic as he always is, and Bae Doona was haunting. Hanks was hit or miss, but it's always fun seeing him doing something out-there, and I liked that they didn't have him trying to be funny (they left that in Broadbent's more capable hands).

It's a huge story, it's not that approachable for the most part (you don't have much time to get to know half of them), and it requires the audience to pay attention to what's going on in several stories, to juggle multiple plots, to sit for over 150 minutes, and then to put them all together at the end if you want them to make sense together. And even when you do...well, as I said, they only SORTA fit together. Really, it felt more like an anthology than anything I can recall seeing on the big screen. And I know those aren't popular.

Overall, three or three-and-a-half out of four stars, leaning towards the more generous end based on the sheer ambition and gutsiness it took to put this thing today, and on the effects, which were well-put-together and not remotely gratuitous. It's a shame it's gonna bomb, but it's not remotely surprising.

Cary Byrd said...

This movie is one of my favorite. I have watched it’s both parts. Thanks for sharing.Christian Movies Online

Anonymous said...

You where right, i haven't seen a movie as all around well done as this one.

Elessar said...

@Charles B...I'm sorry, @Phil

Yes, I saw you harassing Ebert under that name too. Come on man, using the same exact arguments. Bringing up 21, when no one besides you even cares about that movie? Accusing Jim Sturgess of hating Asians by 'Taking their roles?' Even "finding it very interesting' that you drew Argo to his attention and that he didn't comment (not like he has a job to do. First off Charles/Phil, this is not a series of stand up comedy bits in a bunch of bars. Get some new material.

Second it proves a point that I made earlier (see that wall of text you never responded to?): You look like a coward. Same thing, all you do is harass critics about how they're racist, but you hide behind anons. You say you want to change things, but rather than start your own blog and letting the material stand on it's own, you force it into discussions of the movie's quality so that people who want to discuss the movie will be forced to read it.

Finally, harassing people is not the way to get them to respond. You talked about the Akira remake. I love Akira, it's my favorite non-Ghibli anime movie, and I agree, it needs a fully Japanese cast.

But you also complain about the casting of Bane, how he is Latino in the comics. But he's half-british in the comics and has never looked exceptionally Latino, but hey he's partially Latino so he HAS to be cast as a Latino. Doesn't matter that the director has made a career in these movies reimagining his characters from the comics (compare Joker in the comics to Joker in the movie, or Catwoman in the comics to Catwoman in the movies). Never mind that Hardy gave fantastic performance. Director, writer, actor, casting director, none of their ideas matter. The character is half-Latino, so he MUST BE PLAYED BY A LATINO.

Phil/Charles, that is idiotic. Casting people purely based on something as superficial as race is likely to lead to worse movies (looking at you Tyler Perry). But that should change, and there should be more Black, Asian and Latino actors (never mind the damage Hollywood does to LGBT or Atheist characters).

But that's not going to change if all people who support change do is try to piggyback their ideas on popular movie critics or try to force those critics to be their soapboxes. So go out and write your own blog. Until then, please stop harassing critics. All it's down is annoying people who want to discuss the pros and cons of a movie regardless of race.

Phil said...

@ FinalCupil

I am bringing up a topic that is almost never talked about in these circles. Making my own blog is pointless as there are several websites on the web doing a fine job on it. The problem is that those websites are avoided by lots of people in these circles because they think it's a bunch of nonwhites complaining about nothing.

Bob threw his thoughts on it on that Big Picture episode on Idris Elba's casting in Thor but there was inconsistency in Bob's position. That inconsistency was proven when he refused to bring the topic up in his Argo review. He had the opportunity to mention and purposely decided not to do it and just recommended the movie. The Escapist has a huge audience and he could've brought this issue to light to a lot more people. Him not doing so says a lot about how he thinks.


@ JamesT

You're missing crucial points I made several times on this page about Cloud Atlas. Take the time to read them again.

No, people who enjoy a white washed film are not the problem. That is if they are unaware of it. But if they are made aware of it and choose to support it anyway they are part of the problem.


@ Elessar

First of all, why are you bringing up Bane now? Since you decided to fine I'll comment. Yes, Bane should've been played by a Latino. Don't give me that he is half-British crap when that revelation came way after his introduction in a twist of the crappier Batman stories. I don't even think that it has been included in the New 52. Hardy wasn't even cast because of that since Nolan specifically changed his background. That accent that Bane has in Nolan's movie was meant to mark him to not be Latino. Hardy mentioned that in an interview. That's cause in Nolan's version they changed his ethnicity due to the casting of Hardy.

Now, what are you on about? Anyone that brings up Argo, Cloud Atlas and Jim Sturgess must be the same guy? Did you bother to actually read the 2nd article I posted back up there? That entire article talks about Jim Sturgess and Cloud Atlas. Am I also that author? There is article on that same website about Argo and in the comment section someone talks about how critics are not bringing up the fact that Latinos were ignored again for a great role in that movie. Was I that person too?

You think it is unique to mention Argo and Cloud Atlas especially when you figure that they came out within a month of each other? And by the same studio? Heck it was even Warner Brothers that also released The Dark Knight Rises a few months back.

No Elessar you need new material as I've already been accused on this page of being not only "James" but even Movie Bob himself. Add to that, you need to stop being a bigot. Just because you didn't care about 21 doesn't mean no one else did. Many Asian Americans and other nonwhites were insulted at the white washing of that movie because it showed that Hollywood is still just as bad as back in the day. The problem with you is you think everyone has the same experience as you do. You don't experience discrimination so no else must be experiencing discrimination and they must not care cause you don't.

You don't want to care? Fine. But don't go around telling other people this isn't an issue when there are many being affected by this.

FinalCupil said...

@Phil

Haven't read the rest of your last post yet, so this is a response to the part directed at me. Just wanted to say thank you for responding to my questions. However, I would like to know about these blogs you mention that do report on these problems. Seriously, can you post some links or something? I would really like to read them. How can you say they are avoided by people "in these circles" when many of us may not even know about them? Maybe not many people visit them because they don't get much exposure or something, I don't know. Still, some links would be awesome and might help get more people involved in fixing this.

FinalCupil said...

@Phil

Consider this an edit to my last post (stupid blogspot). I noticed you actually posted some links in a couple of your previous post, so I am checking them out now. Still, please post anymore links that you know of.

Anonymous said...

@Phil
Lol, looks like someone's mad.

Also, posting on a blog is going to MAKE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE. Glad you're doing it, and I'm glad you're here.

Please, continue to entertain me. You're the star of this show, ironically.

-A privileged white person

The absolute true Phil said...

I'm just disgusted by all of these fake Phils, especially you, The One True Phil!

I am the absolute, positive, no shadow of a doubt true Phil!

Elessar said...

@Phil:
This is my last comment, as I've now seen the movie and I'm fairly tired of commenting on this. Repeating myself over and over gets tiring so let's make this quick:

1) Phil, I could side by side your comments over at Roger Eberts blog and here and except for a few random curse words, they look like they've been copy-pasted. Don't hide, be proud of who you are.

2) I am not saying no one is being discriminated against. The treatment of non-whites (and non-males. And non-straights. And non-christian) in Hollywood is a legitimate issue. I think it's a fucking disgrace that the number of roles for minorities is as limited as it is. I said

My point is that your way of going about making this point is the wrong way. You just accused me of racism based on...what? The fact that I liked Argo and Cloud Atlas? The fact that I don't scream at Bob or Roger Ebert about these things?

Your rage at Argo at least has some basis. It is bad that Ben Affleck took a role that could have gone to a Latino. But he, as the director, chose to play the character and he did a good job.

But your rage at Cloud Atlas is insane. There are 6 stories of the movie and 4 of them have a minority actor as one of the main leads. So they used makeup to make Jim Sturgess appear Asian? They also used makeup to make Donna Bae appear white and latina. They also used makeup to make Halley Berry appear white, latina, asian, indian. Could this be a part of a larger point about how race is just a construct of the mind? Doesn't matter. Context, story, meaning, depth, treatment of characters, none of this matters. Just your complaints. And if we don't go out of our way to turn our blogs into a soapbox for a random person who doesn't even have the balls to register an account, well then we're racists.

I'm going to repeat myself here: YOU HAVE A VALID POINT ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF NON-WHITE STRAIGHT MALE CHRISTIANS IN HOLLYWOOD FILMS. But you are not going to do anything about it by screaming at film critics. ESPECIALLY when you're screaming at a movie that has gone out of it's way to hire non-white actors in leading roles. Even more so when the movie is making a statement about how races is just a construct of people's minds.

Alright I'm done.