Timestamps : 0:00 - Intro 1:15 - Warner Bros. signs deal with A.I. analytics company 13:37 - Parasite HBO series 21:10 - 1917 37:38 - 1917 (Spoilers) 47:48 - Come and See (Spoilers) 1:15:13 - Q&A - 1:15:35 - What are Alex's and Ralph's thoughts about the final season of Mr. Robot? - 1:19:17 - Would you have a harder time enjoying mainstream American cinema if it all was a grand conspiracy? - 1:21:08 - Thoughts about Ricky Gervais' opening monologue in Golden Globe Awards 2020? - 1:23:29 - Who are your favourite comedy actors? - 1:25:50 - Do you think a movie is better if it's an cinematic achievement? - 1:28:06 - Is there a film you love that carries a negative connotation as a generic "film bro" movie? - 1:31:21 - How do you feel about TV shows with laugh tracks? 1:35:53 - Film Recommendation Adam Recommends: Wizards (1977) by Ralph Bakshi.
What haunts me even more is the sound design as they drive away, you can hear her scream and moan and you can hear the jeers and slobber of drunk fascists…hearing that was actually agony, I had a full on panic attack during that entire scene
I will never unsee the whistle, and witnessing someone who has lived through something so traumatic that their life has no meaning, and they have such little will left in them that they can't take the whistle out, and can barely breath while mustering the most sadly and soft whistles. Her screams being pushed into that truck, and then living through that after seeing everyone she knows burned alive was harrowing to say the very least. Much respect @Poni RS
Same. I didn't have too much trouble watching the movie, because I already knew what would happen. I've read about these things. But that scene and the girl coming back... that made my stomach churn and brought tears to my eyes.
Come and See is just so brutal + hypnotic. It's like those worst nightmares in life you remember even years later. Don't need to rewatch it, it's still so damn vivid in your mind.
Revelation 6:1-2 1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. 2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
The first part of the film until Flyora returns to his vilkage is very rewatchable. With each viewing it becomes funnier and the puppy live between Glasha and Flyora becomes sweeter. Which in a way only makes the second, third and fourth part even more harrowing.
It's a very rewarding film to rewatch. There are lots of details that get lost in the chaos on an initial viewing. Adam had a great observation about the movie's secondary characters at 54:24. They stick out more on subsequent viewings. For instance: the Slavic Nazi collaborator dragging the woman by her hair shows up later as the translator for the SS commanders when they're captured by the partisans. The Cossack partisan with the sword is also seen much earlier in the film when Flyora and the other soldiers are doing the photo-shoot.
@@tonywords6713Thin Red Line doesnt glorify war but it makes it look beautiful as every singke shot in that movie is like a paiting, even when depicting violence. So it works on the purpose of not glorifying acts of fighting and valour but it doesnt show the ugly.
Come and See is honestly maybe my favorite movie ever made, almost every part of that movie not just works but excells. And those final 30 minutes are so uncomfortable that honestly it very well could pass for real footage of WW2.
i would of set the nazis on fire and burned them alive stabbing them and maybe once shooting each of them in non vital areas so they can feel the pain as they slowly die...
The shooting of the portrait and the weird editing was basically asking the question would you kill baby Hitler. That's why every time he shot the picture of hitler the footage was in reverse and then each time it stopped it was replaced with a younger photo of Hitler, rince and repeat until the baby hitler picture is revealed, which I don't think he does shoot in the end, he just looks off into the distance and sees another kid just like how naive he was at the start of the movie.
Yep, and it reinforces that the gun was pretty much useless - just there for a false sense of empowerment. It's a detriment to the character more than a benefit throughout the film and even at the end, he's robbed of any catharsis because he sees the revolving cycle of violence in which he's trapped.
The ending is actually very smart reference to the rest of the film because the Nazi leader says that the children must stay in the church as they burn it because the children will just go on to be horrible things and then it gives you the moral question does baby Hitler in hindsight deserve to be killed an innocent child it will grow up to be a horrible man but does it deserve to be killed
Come and See: characters are deafened by an explosion for an extended period of time 1917: an explosion big enough to take down an entire barracks goes off but neither of them are wounded or impacted in any way
I actually got chills from you three just talking about Come and See, I feel like it just shows the effect this film has on you, the imagery will always be there and comes flooding back as soon as anyone mention it.
But truly it's one of the greatest movies overall. Powerful script, perfect framing and ambiance, remarkable sound design, great acting and characters with hard faces makes it seem like a slice of life rather than a professional production
Just came out of the cinema seeing 1917 REALLY liked it Still have to watch come and see, the last time it got released in Italy was in VHS, i'm going to cry
Surprised they didn't talk more about the ending of Come and See, with the footage. Kinda connects the movie to reality and makes you realize that this was the reality of the people in Belarus. Was honestly very harrowing to watch. And the main character loses all of his humanity and disappears into the army as just another resistance fighter.
The original proposed title of the film was "Killing Hitler", this is a story of the endurance to remain sane and keep moral dignity through adversity.
@@jonathansefcik473 The ending is actually very smart reference to the rest of the film because the Nazi leader says that the children must stay in the church as they burn it because the children will just go on to be horrible things and then it gives you the moral question does baby Hitler in hindsight deserve to be killed an innocent child it will grow up to be a horrible man but does it deserve to be killed
Watched Come and See 2 months ago with my 15-year-old brother. He expected it to be boring as fuck but he was thoroughly engaged throughout all 2 and a half hours of it.
A month or so back Criterion announced a new restoration for Come and See. It used to be available only in 480p iirc so I'm thrilled to experience this movie's horror again in full HD (who am I kidding, you couldnt pay me to watch this movie again, it gave me nightmares)
I also had nightmares about the movie that first night I watched it. I loved how Floyra’s grief over my sacrifice just exfoliated throughout the days after I went. I’ll never forget those nightmares ever
Monty Python's Flying Circus is probably the funniest show ever and there's a laugh track, a real studio audience, and in the earlier episodes like no one laughs because no one gets it and to me that is funnier
Honestly I found 1917 really good and impressive, I have barely seen any movies done that way technically, and I loved that it didn't follow a big group of characters, instead focusing on this much more contained story. I'd call it very creative at least, even if some elements were too emblematic of the genre. Also my impression is that the "one take gimmick" stops because the POV character, the only character we are following at that point, is unconscious. The camera follows him, the narrative follows him, so when he sees nothing, so does the camera.
I actually wish the one shot technique was employed after he wakes up it would've been much more interesting and I didn't really see a point in it beforehand
@The Logomaker forgot to mention that I was talkin to @Intelligence Paradigm. But since you're affected as well, might as well watch more films butthurt
@The Logomaker wowwwww, tf you're talkin about, stop shovinf words on to my mouth. I AM NOT SAYING THE MENDES' A BAD DIRECTOR AT ALL! HAHAHAHAHAHA NO ONE HERE EVER SAID THAT hahaha all am I saying that was I don't find 1917 that great of a war film technically speakin it was good, thanks to deakins but as far as the direction and the overall experience, It's mediocre to me, that's all but that doesnt mean it's shit and bad, so as the mendes. cmon hahahaha,
@@malevolency5122 I wasn't going to bring this up, but it feels pertinent now that I spend most of my free time watching movies. I watch just about everything I can find, especially if I can do so cheaply. I'm a big fan of Birdman, which also did the "one take gimmick" in a sense, and it was cool there too. Lots of movies have long uninterrupted shots (see A Ghost Story for a fairly recent example) and I certainly prefer it to the opposite and ubiquitous issue of having over-edited fast-cutting nonsense chaos like in Bohemian Rhapsody or Catwoman. Beyond all that, I think the camerawork really helped my interest and engagement, and I historically dislike war movies. I enjoy Glory and The Last Samurai as well, but never got much out of Saving Private Ryan, Dunkirk, Flags of our Fathers, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, Letters from Iwo Jima, etc. I find that a lot of those movies have a ton of characters with little screentime and little weight, as if they're just a collective entity that gets slightly smaller when part of it dies. I think many such filmd have some great action scenes and cool set pieces and good music but I wasn't half as invested, I just didn't care about the people. 1917 had what I was looking for, and I appreciate its differences. That's all.
i personally don’t think that 1917’s marketing pushed the one-shot thing very much at all. it wasn’t featured in trailers or anything. i don’t really see where adam is getting his annoyance and expectation from
mmm you dont wander around this stuff then, they really pushed the one-shot thing, i kept seeing this epic videos of the shots being made, ALL IN ONE SHOT
I think it absolutely DID push it - because the ad I kept seeing for the film (which kept interrupting my TH-cam viewing experience - poor me, I know) was literally an extended Behind the Scenes sequence of how the film was going to be all one shot (that's the impression the ad gave) and how difficult and yadda yadda yadda it was to pull off. It very much featured in the marketing of the film, to the point where it's the thing I remember most about the run-up to the film, even if other ads existed which I didn't run across.
Fuzzy Dunlop wow i must truly not have been paying attention then. i didn’t even know necessarily that the whole film was shot like that, just that there were scenes that employed that technique. so i went in with no expectations for anything. probably made for a better viewing experience though !
I definitely didn't see any marketing about the "one-take", but only heard about thru other reviews. So I don't know where Adam gets his info from other than marketing from featurettes or other outlets.
Time stamps 0:00 Intro 1:04 Artificial intelligence & Movie studio algorithms 13:41 Parasite hype 21:13 1917 47:48 Come and See 1:15:13 Q&A Adum’s recommendation: Wizards (1977)
27:00 it was revealed at the end of the film that Schofield had a wife and daughter back home which we didn't know until the very end. Once that's revealed it kind of shows the importance of the milk scene, because it makes sense why he would stop and help them.
Come and See is so horrendous to watch, you feel like you are that kid or that kid's friend, following him around and following him to his descend to madness. The madness, the monstrosity that is inside us. Is gut wrenching, there is no happy or satisfied conclusion. The film basically teaches us that war is the worst thing any human could endured. Please, no more fighting.
@@imperfect_dan7519 Totally agree. But maybe i phrased it the wrong way, im not talking only about the movie itself but also about the performances. Willem Dafoe probably gave the best performance of his life, Robert Pattinson is so underrated as well. I dare to say this is the biggest snub of the Oscars ever. Did you follow the behind the scenes stuff of this years Oscars? Apparently the academy had like 2 or 3 weeks less than last year to vote for their films. Its probably fair to say that most of them did not watch all of the movies. And Horror movies are as usual underrepresented anyway. They are talking about female representation but among the best actresses of the last couple of years were female in horror movies like Toni Collette in Hereditary and Tilda Swinton in Suspiria. But maybe im biased cause im a huge horror fan.
@@bomber9912 Holy shit the disrespect horror films get from the academy is unfathomable. The Oscar's can be a mess sometimes. Look what happened to La La Land for christ sakes?
@@imperfect_dan7519 Oscars hate horror films, and joker was trendy af so they had to. joker was a craply written film carried by one of the best actors working today, with some good cinematography and score,the lighthouse was a superbly written film carried by two of the best actors working today, with some excellent cinematography and directing prowess.
funny how 1917 and Come & See were both discussed here since Roger Deakins lauded the latter on the Criterion blu-ray. He was like "1917 long take? Bush league, amateur hour, Come and See's close-ups were the shit!" it was really funny
When they're trudging through the bog the reason why she didn't tell him is what she explains later to the partisan who meets them - he's almost deaf from shellshock and can't hear very well. This is further emphasized by the somewhat muffled sounds and tinnitus-like ringing for some time after the bombing scene.
How is the one-shot gimmick of 1917 not as good as Birdman when they cut to black when a character passes out, when Birdman just pans up and switches from night to day?
Considering that this is Sam Mendes' 1st co-writing credit, I can understand why the script would be pretty basic. But everything else about the movie was great.
Very confused by their take on 1917 especially ralph and adum, ralph said he loved dunkirk because the story didnt matter at all and it was about the situation the characters were in and the technical side made it incredible ..but for 1917 the story is very surface level and there isnt much too it ? 1917 may have a surface level story but at least it has a story ,dunkirk is just action set piece after set piece with very loud music. Very undermining take I know, it's just inconsistent from what I've heard ralph say about similar movies, and as for adum, hes always said the story in movies is not nearly as important as the way its told, 1917 the one shot is way more crucial then birdman, birdman would have been a similar movie if it had cuts, 1917 is a COMPLETELY different movie if its told with time jumps and cut
Yeah, it feels like Adam was really reaching for reasons to hate this movie for being a "basic war movie" (whatever that means), to the point where you could even hear IHE getting audibly frustrated/confused.
@@coletrainhetrick I see where you're coming from but, that perspective of birdman feels overly meta to me ? Almost like the film is patting itself on the back, which is subjective it's just what I got from it, 1917 feels much more like, its following the journey of these 2 soldiers, it's a war from their POV, the one shot makes it feel as if its us actually watching the events unfold with them rather than watching a movie, I think that is hammered home by the fact you rarely see german soldiers, and at the end, when he is running across the field, the camera is entirely focused on him rather than the battle going on in the background
i watched an interview with aleksei kravchenko (flyora :3) and he said the first cow in those scenes was fine, they didn't hurt it, but the cow that was actually shot was very sick and they were going to put it down anyway
A future possible recommendation that would be great is Fritz the Cat by Ralph Bakshi, it’s one of the greatest animated films ever made. Also the first X-rated animated film ever made ;)
No. Oh my god no. I made the mistake of trying to watch Fritz The Cat. It's gross-out humor and furry porn. It's just vulgarity for its own sake. It's like a Friedberg and Seltzer animated work. Same style of writing and jokes, same utter lack of logic or cohesion. Garbage movie.
One thing I i hope you guys get on a second watch is the ending is him ”going back in time” each shot is like one year until he gets to the 20s when it starts to jump in greater years. When he sees the picture of baby Hitler he realizes that he has somewhat become the monsters who killed his family and just walks away and joins his unit.
Cold crappy January... perfect remedy for feeling so blue = hot drink, hot water bottle and three cheeky chaps on Sardonicast. Thank you for making my day.
slavoj zizek had a good comment once regarding the laugh track. he used robert pfaller's theory of interpassivity. im too drunk to write this down coherently, but the point is that when a working class person comes home and turns on the tv he has no energy left to laugh at funny stuff. enter canned laughter, which does the job for you and you feel like you had a good time even though you haven't laughed once
Man, I disagree with a lot of the negatives brought up about 1917, however I do feel like Alex brought up a lot of things that I personally felt about the movie (it feeling like Lord of The Rings, Blake wanting to give water because he is like a naive child) although I did like it a lot more than them this time around unfortunately
I hope Adam sees 1917 now with the right expectations. It seems he went just wanting a movie that never was. And Im still confused about which part of the promotion of the movie said it was one take; the first reviewers of the movie brought that up but that's it.
He watched their promo reel which I guess focused a lot on the production and behind the scenes they talked about it a lot. I didn't think it was advertised that way, but he's referring to that reel. I still think his quickie review was incredibly picky and harsh, and even a little inconsistent. I thought it was a great film. Not perfect, but pretty good.
The marketing of the film focused a lot on this gimmick - it's the first ad I saw, they ran multiple 'behind the scenes' bits on TH-cam ads talking about how difficult it was to pull off, etc. It really gave the impression that the entire film was going to be one take. You're confused because you were unaware, it happens to the best of us.
What's funny for me is that I've never been a fan of Thomas Newman's music, and I tried listening to his "best of scores" people have been recommending me for years. While I respect the dude on his craft, I could never get into his scores. Whereas "1917", that was the first time I could not only remember some of the tracks, but also loved them both in the context of the film and on their own. I could even say that his quote on quote "cheesy" moments fit better here and work with what the film is going for, compared to his other work like "The Shawshank Redemption", "American Beauty", "Skyfall", or even "Finding Nemo". So to hear you guys say his music was the weakest part surprises me, as I felt that was one of the more stronger aspects of the film.
They shot the cow for real for this movie on camera while the actor and cameraman was 2 meters away. So if course they dragged the girl for real. They also didn't have the correct reaction from the public then being dragged to the church, and it was a church not the barn, so they put the rumour out that the filmmakers can actually lot the church on fire. And they had that accurate reaction
One of the Nazi soldiers that gets shot near the end says ''It all starts with the children'' referring to Judaism. I think this is why we see the baby picture of Adolf. The camera pans up and then looks at the face of his mother. I believe the director was putting into question where evil comes from with that shot.
He's not just talk about Jews. Part of Nazi racial hierarchy is that slavs are also part of the inferior races, so he is referring to the non-Jewish Belarussians as well.
Have you guys considered watching and reviewing Threads (1984)? It’s a made-for-tv docudrama about the impacts of nuclear war on the working class city of Sheffield, England. Easily one of the most frightening and disturbing films I’ve ever watched. It’s like a NOVA episode from Hell.
1:00:10 Those are real bullets being shot from machine guns, real tracers come in a variety of colours the two most prominent during the 40s being Red, Green. Though White is also another very commonly used colour. Star Wars used the colours of red and green because those were the the two colours used by American and German Machine guns in their aircraft (and on the ground) which there space craft were emulating. Though because people now associate those colours to being "laser guns", films and games tend to stay away from them and tend to use white or yellow/orange colour.
Speaking of Star Wars - normally when you see someone or thing get shot in a film you have a squib go off and you get a spurt of blood and it's a big dramatic thing, etc- what Come and See depicts is the opposite and I've always found the scene with the cow more illustrative and important as a result of this. When the cow gets hit, the tracer just disappears into this big meaty beast and the viewer may not even register what's happened at first, it's understated and arbitrary - it LOOKS like someone getting hit with a blast bolt in Star Wars because we've been so conditioned to see the squibs and the dramatics, but in reality this isn't necessarily the case when someone is hit. The entry wound is always smaller than the exit and both can be easily obscured by hair, fur, clothing, etc - so when someone drops it wont necessarily be a big thing. They'll just drop like a sack of shit and that's it. Arbitrary, understated - horrific in its LACK of fan-fare.
You won't have a nightmare unless this is literally the first slightly troubling thing you've ever encountered in your life. I was told I would see a horrific war masterpiece, I got a weird cooky Russian film that shows nothing and implies everything. Maybe being a soviet production limited what they could do but seriously I was expecting something like the rape scene from redacted and yeah nothing in the film comes even close to being traumatising, it's all shit you've seen in other war films, it's not a bad movie but it's not what everyone keeps saying it is.
"Filmbros" have their annoying characteristics, but I can't imagine liking something like Pulp Fiction less because it's big with that crowd. The thing about great movies is that a lot of people will love them regardless of whether those people are dickheads or not.
@Peachy Parasite Well, think of a "bro," someone who uses the words "sick," "dope" and, of course, "bro" at a high frequency and really wants to be black (this applies to people of any other race, really). A filmbro is that guy, only he also loves movies. He probably tends to have specific tastes that usually include Fight Club, Se7en, everything made by Tarantino and Nolan, and everything made by Scorsese from Goodfellas onward. This what I could come up with, but there's no clear definition as far as I can tell. More than anything, you know a filmbro when you see one. There's nothing wrong with being a filmbro. They just tend to exhibit certain characteristics, as many groups of people defined by their characteristics do. Sometimes filmbros, in my opinion, can be annoying, but so can anyone. Their annoying characteristics are just so recognizable and predictable.
i think youre saying that more out of disagreement with adam, at the same time he is usually the dominant one in discussion.i didnt think he is dismissing their views he just didnt bother to say "wow, good point, i respect that opinion" before replying
The movie Primer shows us that a mind-blowing brilliant movie doesn't need hundreds of millions of dollars. I fuckin love that movie and his budget was like $7000. Amazing.
I believe you could show someone parts of come and see and pass it off as real footage, and they'd believe you. Specifically the ending where they are marching trough the forest
Today's lesson: don't market your film so you'll get a one point higher score from Adum! I mean, seriously? Of course it's not *literally* one shot, but how the hell else are you gonna describe the way the film was edited? Seems like a rather minor thing to get upset over. Personally I stopped noticing the obvious scene cuts after a while. I was mostly just impressed (and legitimately terrified) at the impact that many of the scenes had on me. I really felt the impending danger when they first stuck their heads above the edge of the front line trench - I cried when the first Corporal died - I felt the claustrophobia when he was hiding from snipers - I felt the bliss when he sat down at the song without anyone even noticing him
I didn't realize at first that Ralph was in this - I clicked on the video randomly and while I thought the voice sounded uncannily familiar, Ralph generally just sounds like everyone I grew up with in Ozone Park so I couldn't place it. That said, a few things of note about Come and See - the earliest use of steadicam that I've come across. Not sure if they invented a rig that's basically steadicam or what but the camera is synced so well to the little movements of the characters in those face shots that I'm pretty sure that's what's going on there, steadicam in 1985 (earlier, actually, because the film wasn't released for like five years) so that's pretty cool. Another thing, an aspect that's pretty important to the film but that you guys may have missed - what we see in the film isn't necessarily what's actually going on - we're in the headspace of Flyora for the entirety of the movie and a lot of the absurdist aspects - the sound, the exaggeration of facial expressions - it's all meant to invoke that state of terror or panic where time seems to slow down and the mind focuses on minute, sometimes pointless details. I actually think viewing the film as someone not from Belarus or Eastern Europe and not having a firm grasp on the culture actually adds to the strangeness of the film and benefits it in this way - it can come off as almost a fantasy piece in this way and I think it's to the film's benefit. Also, the earliest instance of the "shell-shock ear-whining" audio that Steven Spielberg will rip off and subsequently make a trope of war films. The vehicles don't seem period-accurate (I'm big into this stuff) but from what I've read (and what I've seen in the film itself) the uniforms are INCREDIBLY accurate, as well as the firearms. From what I've read all of that stuff was basically taken straight from German POWs and the like - stored in warehouses for decades until unpacked for use in the film so they're all legitimate. There's a mix of regular Red Army uniforms, German Wehrmacht and SS uniforms, civilian clothing - even Italian or maybe Polish uniforms sprinkled around with civvie clothes which is what Partisans would wear and the German unit in the film (which is based on the very real, and very awful) Dirlewanger unit is very accurate as well - being SS and being a partisan-hunting unit, they would have to scrounge together their own firearms from captured stock and from whatever was lying around. The tracer shots are beautiful, and I've always thought the look of tracers bouncing off into the distance has a scary sort of beauty to it - that's what this film does right that I've never seen done before, the violence is overbearing and absurd in its alien nature to the viewer, and as shown in the shooting of the cow - incredibly arbitrary. Someone gets shot in a film and the squib goes off and there's a spurt or maybe some chunks and the victim goes down and you see it, but when the cow gets hit the viewer may not even realize what's happened because the tracer just disappears into the cow and you don't see the entrance wound from that distance and for a split second the COW ITSELF doesn't realize it's been hit and when it does it lets out a jump. No gore, or viscera - the cow just drops and suffers. To me that is more illustrative than the big shocking finale sequence because that's the film at its most truthful - it's real, you see this creature get hit with a very real tracer and die over the course of that sequence in the field. The body begins to malfunction (the bit with the eye) and it goes into its death rattle - which means the death of the people in that swamp - and while it's just a fucking cow and I'm not a bleeding heart necessarily (I'm not going to cry over one cow dying just because I happen to see it while I'm perfectly fine eating meat I don't see butchered - I think that's hypocritical), the analogy is evident - I know that people die just the same. It's both the film at perhaps its most morally dubious and questionable (putting a child in that predicament; killing an animal for the sake of the film) but also at its most important and illustrative of that title - Come and See - you've bought your ticket, now bear witness.
I'm going to go ahead and say before hearing your thoughts, but 1917 is probably my favorite film of the year - and Nightingale, Irishman and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood were all 10/10s for me - but 1917 was an emotionally moving experience. Sure it had some flaws in terms of feasibility and of course the controversy of the Sikh soldier not being in a Sikh regiment, as well as that letter somehow remaining dry, but in a way i felt as though the film wasn't trying to be technically realistic, but rather emotionally realistic, and in that it succeeded flawlessly. One of the best war films ever made in my not so humble opinion, the two characters subtle development was fantastic, and how Mckay was not nominated for an Oscar is beyond me. Of course, the cinematography by Deakins is what makes the film truly astounding (that shot where it transitions to night and pans out the window). On par with his work on BR2049. The usage of the music didn't bother me, in fact it felt appropriate. This is a true cinematic experience, it's a roller coaster, but in the best way, not like that MCU schlock. A brilliant film with brilliant acting, brilliant directing, brilliant cinematography, and an emotional core that will linger with me. I used to rank Dunkirk as my 2nd favorite war film - behind Apocalypse Now - but 1917 takes it's place. I know the film has flaws, and i know the one shot thing is still experimental, but to me it was a pure experience, it's why i watch films, the atmosphere, the emotions, the situation it invests you in, if your'e a young lad like myself around that age, you cant help but wonder what the hell you'd do in that situation. The arc of Scofield was really really touching, to quote Drive, it depicts A Real Hero. Men like him existed, men like him still exist, goodness prevails even in the most hideous of circumstances. Perhaps my passion for this film will die down when i see it some more times, but i doubt it. may this film immortalize the common morality and courage, as well as struggles, spread across humanity, throughout all of time.
Not an art film, but one that didn't rely on the one-r gimmick (that by now is very overdone in TV and cinema) - he really should've known better because the marketing of the film focused on this (and never expect depth from a film named after a fucking year).
I think The Thin Red Line focuses more on the relationship between war and nature whereas Come and See is about the relationship between war and people.
On 1917 - as someone who has a deep love of history and has pretty much spent my life devoted to it - I have a rule of thumb when it comes to war films - basically, if the title of the film is a major battle from a war - there's a very good chance it's going to suck from an historical perspective - there are notable exceptions (possibly including Dunkirk, probably not) - but major battle names always give a lofty expectation that you can't deliver on, there's just too much for a film to capture - so imagine taking that rule of thumb and seeing a film whose title is the biggest year of the second-biggest conflict in human history. Just the year. That's a little too grandiose for me - there was a LOT going on in 1917 so just focusing on this curated tale of strapping British lads doing the whole Western Front thing - that's the most overdone part of WWI. You could show literally ANYTHING else that happened in 1917 and make a novel film out of it but we keep doing the same shit over and over again and on concept alone it's hard to walk into the movie theater with an open mind because the premise alone has already taken the sandpaper to me.
I would really love to see a discussion of Jojo rabbit. The film really resonated with me both comedically and emotionally but critical reception is mixed to say the least so it would be cool to hear some of their thoughts/ opinions.
B B it’s a pretty mediocre film. The acting is stilted, the dialogues comes across as forced, the plot is predictable and the tone and style of the film rips off of Wes Anderson.
Awww man, Wizards is a great film! I had to see it for an art class, and my one friend decided to do LSD before hand, and when the film was over and the lights in the theater came back on, he was just sitting there gripping the arms of his seat.
I love how they talk about how to cheat a woman being pulled with her hair few seconds after they uncover that live bullets were used in the movie. Dudes, there was no rope there.
@@thepretentiouscinephile6492 nah, we all know adum is a very critical critic, not a bash, just establishing. he definitely had unrealistic expectations, idk how he thought he was gonna get an art film
I've seen Wizards in theaters during a film festival, with a Q&A with Ralph Bakshi following it with some "mild" pot smoke in the air from the back of the theater. I won't spoil it, but I'm not sure you all will love it. I think it will be appreciated for what it is though. I liked it (6.5/10), but I like American POP (8.5/10) way more. Mr. Bakshi was really interesting to listen too. He pretty much told everyone straight how difficult it is now a days to make a film compared to when he was doing it. To paraphrase him some he flat out paid artists for help and the thing he thinks ruined it was all the corporations and lawyers getting involved like the RIAA. I got nervous when I was in the crowd that my hand started to cramp lol.
As a UK viewer is there any way for me to watch Come and See? It only appears to be available to the USA on Criterion, and I have been unable to find a Region B DVD for it. I mean Alex has seen it so there must be some way of viewing it in the UK?
Type in this in Google смотреть Иди и смотри с английскими субтитрами. It means watch Come and see with English subtitles. Just copy past it to Google and you LL find it
I totally agreed with Adam. The only sequence that kinda took me out of it was the going through the mud part. And, though I love the whole “going back in time” thing, but I think they cycled through a little too much footage before they got to Hilter as a soldier and then a baby. Could’ve trimmed that back a little bit.
"I was hoping to see some art film." Even after you watched the promo reel? He's just convinced it's bad, or least not great, but he protests TOO much. His criticism leans a bit too much toward subjective insults and not enough objective criticism (except the music, or that it's cheesy). It's not what HE wanted, so he doesn't like it. And he talks about how he hates war movies and then says I wish it was [lists 3 other war movies]. But why are those movies better? Explain! Here's another episode where Adam steamrolls Alex, and Ralph doesn't want to seem uncool so he ends up agreeing with everything somehow.
@@arr165 everyone is allowed an opinion. Someone who wants to build their platform as a film or art critic might also have the depth to explain their opinion, though.
objective critisism does not exist. This is a podcast where three friends come together to talk about movies so they're allowed to share their opinion.
This ain't Roger and Ebert, he doesn't HAVE to be objective. He wants to shit on a film? Fine, none of these guys are an authority on the subject because they like films and have a podcast. They don't have to be objective, and it's unreasonable (meaning you'll just let yourself down) to expect that of them.
@@McGregor43 Its honestly so bad, been waiting to see Waves, The Lighthouse and Parasite but Odeon is only showing screening of parasite as a pre-interview one and the other two probably won't show near me - despite advertisement.
@Navarro Dodge Sure, but he said the movie lacked meticulous coordination and great cinematography when a lot of the movie was built on that. It's plot was super basic, totally, its just some of his gripes seem random and don't make much sense.
To add to what theodstking said, YMS stated that the One shot technique didnt feel like it added to the film. I vehemently disagree with that notion, as you feel like because they cannot cut that you are with the soldiers thru every step of the journey, you experience the tension build as they are thrust into dangerous and unknown areas. If you add cuts to the that its going to take away the feeling of time passing slowly and every step of the journey.
More like terrible not just in his bad takes on the movie but terrible in editing and consistency in general for the video. My favorite worst line from ralph -> “is this supposed to be alfred” then jumps to next scene... XD th-cam.com/video/oaUwE677atk/w-d-xo.html
Marko Mihin i think alex is part of the reason why Ralph has such a bad take on the joker movie. Not only that but I believe that the reason the editing and the script for the video is so bad because ralph didn’t want to make a video on it but shat one out anyway with little effort because he already started it but wanted to get it over with.
The one-shot gimmick was to put you in the perspective of the two main characters. That's the reason why there was a cut to black, because one of the soldiers was knocked unconscious.
to be fair they arent an outright political channel, but at this point with the amount of anti-capitalism this area of the media i think people ought to actually articulate their problems with it rather than just bash the best economic and social system ever made thus far relentlessly out of simple tribalism and parroting. capitalism is a flawed system and if left unchecked can dispossess people, however its as i said also the best system we have ever created, and it is one that never stops growing and developing and making progress, unlike every other system which is stagnant, mainly nationalism and marxist-horseshit. capitalism with a degree of, call it "socialist" intervention, i.e enough money, but not too much, is gathered from the exceedingly wealthy (i.e people and monopolies that simply have too much dosh to know what to do with, im looking at you jeff bezos) to fund for everyone to be supplied with the essentials - essentials which, thanks to the nature of capitalism will improve in quality over time - is (while that was a very oversimplified description missing out key elements) i repeat, the best possible system we have thus far. there needs to be a degree, a strong degree, of people earning what they have, beyond the essentials, and there are always those that suffer unduly. but all humans suffer, what makes one human different to another is how they respond to the suffering.
@@_Azagoth_ Marxism is a scientific analysis of capitalistic mode of production and class structure, not some evil attack on western values or whatever like peterson or shapiro or whoever you got this vague rant from would have you believe. And as we're seeing now in the final stages of capitalism, he was absolutely correct in his analysis. Wealth inequality is enormous, wage growth is stagnant, workers work longer hours for less pay and now the environment cannot handle the relentless exploitation of the profit motive. Marx observed these contradictions in capitalism and concluded that socialism was the natural successor of capitalism. As for other systems being stagnant, how do you justify the Soviet union and China industrialising in a single generation and becoming world powers in a relatively short amount of time? Or Nordic countries being very successful? This is a silly criticism and I'd suggest you'd actually learn about leftist analysis instead of just repeating whatever these TH-cam pundits say where you very obviously got this information from.
@@timmortal yeah, true. Maybe they ought to mention it occasionally, just to give these anti-sjw guys something to think about. Hint, the reason we're getting the same types of movies over and over again and increasingly huge monopolies on the film industry is because of capitalism.
@@timmortal as an anti-sjw (not that i hate them as individuals, i just strongly disagree with the common sjw beliefs) myself, it wouldnt scare me away, im willing to hear other perspectives, i think everyone has a right to criticize the system. i just think social justice isnt an apt, and is often a malicious, attempt at a solution.
@@apuffin9545 i dont think its just because of capitalism, as in i dont see socialism solving the issue. look at the soviet union and china for example. yeah not exactly a high bar or politically diverse range of mainstream films, particularly china even now. i think though it is amplified by corrupt capitalism, and i do despise disneys power as a monopoly, i think the answer lies in people seeking out socially indie films and such and making them more popular. if Disney want to continue with the roller-coaster market, let us people invest in the cinema market, that still exists and is arguably in my view stronger than ever due to the accessibility, both for creators and consumers. everything falls eventually. Disney will fall out of favor, and will dissipate, unless it improves, and if it does improve, then thered be no issue. in capitalism in film and gaming you vote with your wallet, in a socialist state you dont get to vote in such art mediums, the state decides what is and isnt acceptable in being made. as for a marxist utopia? well thatd have to be feasibly possible first to consider that option.
Timestamps
:
0:00 - Intro
1:15 - Warner Bros. signs deal with A.I. analytics company
13:37 - Parasite HBO series
21:10 - 1917
37:38 - 1917 (Spoilers)
47:48 - Come and See (Spoilers)
1:15:13 - Q&A
- 1:15:35 - What are Alex's and Ralph's thoughts about the final season of Mr. Robot?
- 1:19:17 - Would you have a harder time enjoying mainstream American cinema if it all was a grand conspiracy?
- 1:21:08 - Thoughts about Ricky Gervais' opening monologue in Golden Globe Awards 2020?
- 1:23:29 - Who are your favourite comedy actors?
- 1:25:50 - Do you think a movie is better if it's an cinematic achievement?
- 1:28:06 - Is there a film you love that carries a negative connotation as a generic "film bro" movie?
- 1:31:21 - How do you feel about TV shows with laugh tracks?
1:35:53 - Film Recommendation
Adam Recommends: Wizards (1977) by Ralph Bakshi.
Within one minute... You're a hacker
Why it says 5 days ago?
@@movienight6437 Patreon peeps get episodes before us.
@@movienight6437 We patreons can watch each episode five or several days before they get public.
DANGIT, I want them to do Dear Zachary
A moment of silence from all the people who clicked on Sardonicast for the first time and saw that intro....
P Murphy actually listen to it he doesn’t justify beastiality you loser
Peachy Parasite Those people arr disgusting
DJ TRUCKER my comment was deleted lol
@@roycastanon5754 What did you comment.
DJ TRUCKER that I never knew he was a furry and he probably does stuff to animals
The girl getting dragged into that car and then seeing her later still haunts me
What haunts me even more is the sound design as they drive away, you can hear her scream and moan and you can hear the jeers and slobber of drunk fascists…hearing that was actually agony, I had a full on panic attack during that entire scene
I will never unsee the whistle, and witnessing someone who has lived through something so traumatic that their life has no meaning, and they have such little will left in them that they can't take the whistle out, and can barely breath while mustering the most sadly and soft whistles. Her screams being pushed into that truck, and then living through that after seeing everyone she knows burned alive was harrowing to say the very least. Much respect @Poni RS
Same. I didn't have too much trouble watching the movie, because I already knew what would happen. I've read about these things.
But that scene and the girl coming back... that made my stomach churn and brought tears to my eyes.
Many people think that girl is Glash but its not. But the movie infer Glash once suffered such a fate before.
Come and See is just so brutal + hypnotic.
It's like those worst nightmares in life you remember even years later.
Don't need to rewatch it, it's still so damn vivid in your mind.
Yeah, I tried to watch it in multiple segments, but I just couldn't pause it at all and couldn't take my eyes off it for a moment!
Revelation 6:1-2
1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.
2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
The first part of the film until Flyora returns to his vilkage is very rewatchable. With each viewing it becomes funnier and the puppy live between Glasha and Flyora becomes sweeter. Which in a way only makes the second, third and fourth part even more harrowing.
It's a very rewarding film to rewatch. There are lots of details that get lost in the chaos on an initial viewing. Adam had a great observation about the movie's secondary characters at 54:24. They stick out more on subsequent viewings. For instance: the Slavic Nazi collaborator dragging the woman by her hair shows up later as the translator for the SS commanders when they're captured by the partisans. The Cossack partisan with the sword is also seen much earlier in the film when Flyora and the other soldiers are doing the photo-shoot.
Some dude: you can't make a true war movie, because they always end up glorifying war
Elem Klimov: hold my vodka
Johnny's Got A Gun in there too
thin red line
Catch 22 ? Not originally a movie, of course but it certainly doesn't glorify war.
@@gnalkhere Amazing film
@@tonywords6713Thin Red Line doesnt glorify war but it makes it look beautiful as every singke shot in that movie is like a paiting, even when depicting violence. So it works on the purpose of not glorifying acts of fighting and valour but it doesnt show the ugly.
Come and See is honestly maybe my favorite movie ever made, almost every part of that movie not just works but excells. And those final 30 minutes are so uncomfortable that honestly it very well could pass for real footage of WW2.
The reality was much worse.
i would of set the nazis on fire and burned them alive stabbing them and maybe once shooting each of them in non vital areas so they can feel the pain as they slowly die...
@@razkable I think the point of Come and See may have went over your head
It’s not my favorite film, however it is my favorite war film by a mile; only thing close is apocalypse now.
The shooting of the portrait and the weird editing was basically asking the question would you kill baby Hitler. That's why every time he shot the picture of hitler the footage was in reverse and then each time it stopped it was replaced with a younger photo of Hitler, rince and repeat until the baby hitler picture is revealed, which I don't think he does shoot in the end, he just looks off into the distance and sees another kid just like how naive he was at the start of the movie.
Yep, and it reinforces that the gun was pretty much useless - just there for a false sense of empowerment. It's a detriment to the character more than a benefit throughout the film and even at the end, he's robbed of any catharsis because he sees the revolving cycle of violence in which he's trapped.
what movie was this?
@@poopydoody7618 Come and See
The ending is actually very smart reference to the rest of the film because the Nazi leader says that the children must stay in the church as they burn it because the children will just go on to be horrible things and then it gives you the moral question does baby Hitler in hindsight deserve to be killed an innocent child it will grow up to be a horrible man but does it deserve to be killed
@@tuxstfilms7547 and will that change anything and has he tuned you into him?
You guys really should have started talking about 1917 at 19:17
they could have easily done it too
Come and See: characters are deafened by an explosion for an extended period of time
1917: an explosion big enough to take down an entire barracks goes off but neither of them are wounded or impacted in any way
Difference between real cinema and hollywood.
I actually got chills from you three just talking about Come and See, I feel like it just shows the effect this film has on you, the imagery will always be there and comes flooding back as soon as anyone mention it.
But truly it's one of the greatest movies overall. Powerful script, perfect framing and ambiance, remarkable sound design, great acting and characters with hard faces makes it seem like a slice of life rather than a professional production
"I trust computer algorithms to some degree"
Adam, 3 minutes after talking about some random bad kid's song video having 82 million views
Miasma yes
Just came out of the cinema seeing 1917
REALLY liked it
Still have to watch come and see, the last time it got released in Italy was in VHS, i'm going to cry
Surprised they didn't talk more about the ending of Come and See, with the footage. Kinda connects the movie to reality and makes you realize that this was the reality of the people in Belarus. Was honestly very harrowing to watch. And the main character loses all of his humanity and disappears into the army as just another resistance fighter.
Another thing I took it as was you can't reverse/undo history, hence the backwards footage
1917 and come and see are in a league of their own for war movies...
The original proposed title of the film was "Killing Hitler", this is a story of the endurance to remain sane and keep moral dignity through adversity.
@@mistercheetah9717 I would say the onl war film in the same class as Come and See is 'Third Part of the Night' by Andrzej Zulawski.
@@jonathansefcik473 The ending is actually very smart reference to the rest of the film because the Nazi leader says that the children must stay in the church as they burn it because the children will just go on to be horrible things and then it gives you the moral question does baby Hitler in hindsight deserve to be killed an innocent child it will grow up to be a horrible man but does it deserve to be killed
Watched Come and See 2 months ago with my 15-year-old brother. He expected it to be boring as fuck but he was thoroughly engaged throughout all 2 and a half hours of it.
A month or so back Criterion announced a new restoration for Come and See.
It used to be available only in 480p iirc so I'm thrilled to experience this movie's horror again in full HD (who am I kidding, you couldnt pay me to watch this movie again, it gave me nightmares)
I also had nightmares about the movie that first night I watched it. I loved how Floyra’s grief over my sacrifice just exfoliated throughout the days after I went. I’ll never forget those nightmares ever
Monty Python's Flying Circus is probably the funniest show ever and there's a laugh track, a real studio audience, and in the earlier episodes like no one laughs because no one gets it and to me that is funnier
Wow thank you for recommending come and see. Such an incredible film.
Honestly I found 1917 really good and impressive, I have barely seen any movies done that way technically, and I loved that it didn't follow a big group of characters, instead focusing on this much more contained story. I'd call it very creative at least, even if some elements were too emblematic of the genre.
Also my impression is that the "one take gimmick" stops because the POV character, the only character we are following at that point, is unconscious. The camera follows him, the narrative follows him, so when he sees nothing, so does the camera.
I actually wish the one shot technique was employed after he wakes up it would've been much more interesting and I didn't really see a point in it beforehand
then watch more films, clearly u havent seen enuf
@The Logomaker forgot to mention that I was talkin to @Intelligence Paradigm. But since you're affected as well, might as well watch more films butthurt
@The Logomaker wowwwww, tf you're talkin about, stop shovinf words on to my mouth. I AM NOT SAYING THE MENDES' A BAD DIRECTOR AT ALL! HAHAHAHAHAHA NO ONE HERE EVER SAID THAT hahaha all am I saying that was I don't find 1917 that great of a war film technically speakin it was good, thanks to deakins but as far as the direction and the overall experience, It's mediocre to me, that's all but that doesnt mean it's shit and bad, so as the mendes. cmon hahahaha,
@@malevolency5122 I wasn't going to bring this up, but it feels pertinent now that I spend most of my free time watching movies. I watch just about everything I can find, especially if I can do so cheaply. I'm a big fan of Birdman, which also did the "one take gimmick" in a sense, and it was cool there too. Lots of movies have long uninterrupted shots (see A Ghost Story for a fairly recent example) and I certainly prefer it to the opposite and ubiquitous issue of having over-edited fast-cutting nonsense chaos like in Bohemian Rhapsody or Catwoman.
Beyond all that, I think the camerawork really helped my interest and engagement, and I historically dislike war movies. I enjoy Glory and The Last Samurai as well, but never got much out of Saving Private Ryan, Dunkirk, Flags of our Fathers, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, Letters from Iwo Jima, etc.
I find that a lot of those movies have a ton of characters with little screentime and little weight, as if they're just a collective entity that gets slightly smaller when part of it dies. I think many such filmd have some great action scenes and cool set pieces and good music but I wasn't half as invested, I just didn't care about the people. 1917 had what I was looking for, and I appreciate its differences. That's all.
i personally don’t think that 1917’s marketing pushed the one-shot thing very much at all. it wasn’t featured in trailers or anything. i don’t really see where adam is getting his annoyance and expectation from
mmm you dont wander around this stuff then, they really pushed the one-shot thing, i kept seeing this epic videos of the shots being made, ALL IN ONE SHOT
The first trailer had no push, but there were a trillion featuretes pushing the gimmick
I think it absolutely DID push it - because the ad I kept seeing for the film (which kept interrupting my TH-cam viewing experience - poor me, I know) was literally an extended Behind the Scenes sequence of how the film was going to be all one shot (that's the impression the ad gave) and how difficult and yadda yadda yadda it was to pull off.
It very much featured in the marketing of the film, to the point where it's the thing I remember most about the run-up to the film, even if other ads existed which I didn't run across.
Fuzzy Dunlop wow i must truly not have been paying attention then. i didn’t even know necessarily that the whole film was shot like that, just that there were scenes that employed that technique. so i went in with no expectations for anything. probably made for a better viewing experience though !
I definitely didn't see any marketing about the "one-take", but only heard about thru other reviews. So I don't know where Adam gets his info from other than marketing from featurettes or other outlets.
After watching Come and See, I was really drained. Probably the saddest movie that I’ve seen...
The reality of it was even worse, babies were grabbed by their legs and beaten to death.
@@chinahatchild3030 everyone talks about what germany did...what about the japanese
@@razkable
Even worse shit, but most of the evidence was destroyed and kept under the rug for decades.
@@razkable All fascists are bastards.
Now we just need you guys to review Little Women, and this year’s Best Picture lineup is complete!
I think Adam briefly mentioned it in one of the episodes, seemed like a satisfactory review
FINALLY you guys are talking about Come and See. I’m hyped.
You’ll be freaking traumatised I’m telling you now
Time stamps
0:00 Intro
1:04 Artificial intelligence & Movie studio algorithms
13:41 Parasite hype
21:13 1917
47:48 Come and See
1:15:13 Q&A
Adum’s recommendation: Wizards (1977)
@P Murphy Stop posting this video everywhere. Fucking idiot.
Very glad you’re talking about come and see. Such a powerful film.
Oh, finally. I’ve been waiting for this to upload all morning.
I just realized that Adam looks and sounds like a human version of Squidward Tentacles.
He's a killjoy too
Hes also a pretentious douchebag
@P Murphy so what your saying is Squidward is the result of Adum diddling an Octopus without its consent?
@@budeah69 No u
@Amerul Aidil Well you don't sound to open minded if that's your view on things...
I love how they review Come and See right next to 1917 just to make it look that much more superior
@Jonathan Jones cope
27:00 it was revealed at the end of the film that Schofield had a wife and daughter back home which we didn't know until the very end. Once that's revealed it kind of shows the importance of the milk scene, because it makes sense why he would stop and help them.
I think it should have been established early on because I thought I missed something
I didn't know about the daughter until then but it was mentioned that he had a wife earlier
Come and See is so horrendous to watch, you feel like you are that kid or that kid's friend, following him around and following him to his descend to madness. The madness, the monstrosity that is inside us. Is gut wrenching, there is no happy or satisfied conclusion. The film basically teaches us that war is the worst thing any human could endured. Please, no more fighting.
Can we expect an episode about Oscar nominations and your opinions on it? Like Joker going completely overboard and Lighthouse behing snubbed ?
Like I dont get that at all. The Lighthouse was a far more compelling film than joker
@@imperfect_dan7519 Totally agree. But maybe i phrased it the wrong way, im not talking only about the movie itself but also about the performances. Willem Dafoe probably gave the best performance of his life, Robert Pattinson is so underrated as well. I dare to say this is the biggest snub of the Oscars ever.
Did you follow the behind the scenes stuff of this years Oscars? Apparently the academy had like 2 or 3 weeks less than last year to vote for their films. Its probably fair to say that most of them did not watch all of the movies. And Horror movies are as usual underrepresented anyway. They are talking about female representation but among the best actresses of the last couple of years were female in horror movies like Toni Collette in Hereditary and Tilda Swinton in Suspiria. But maybe im biased cause im a huge horror fan.
Too few women and people of color in the Lighthouse to stand a chance really
@@bomber9912 Holy shit the disrespect horror films get from the academy is unfathomable. The Oscar's can be a mess sometimes. Look what happened to La La Land for christ sakes?
@@imperfect_dan7519 Oscars hate horror films, and joker was trendy af so they had to. joker was a craply written film carried by one of the best actors working today, with some good cinematography and score,the lighthouse was a superbly written film carried by two of the best actors working today, with some excellent cinematography and directing prowess.
funny how 1917 and Come & See were both discussed here since Roger Deakins lauded the latter on the Criterion blu-ray. He was like "1917 long take? Bush league, amateur hour, Come and See's close-ups were the shit!" it was really funny
Speaking of films taking ages to be released, the lighthouse is still not out in Australia
Adum gave Joker a 7/10. Alex gave It Chapter Two a 7/10. Ralph is gay.
I'm not even a war movie fanatic, but I loved Come and See.
When they're trudging through the bog the reason why she didn't tell him is what she explains later to the partisan who meets them - he's almost deaf from shellshock and can't hear very well. This is further emphasized by the somewhat muffled sounds and tinnitus-like ringing for some time after the bombing scene.
Just rewatched Come and See this week. GotDang! Great film.
How is the one-shot gimmick of 1917 not as good as Birdman when they cut to black when a character passes out, when Birdman just pans up and switches from night to day?
Considering that this is Sam Mendes' 1st co-writing credit, I can understand why the script would be pretty basic. But everything else about the movie was great.
@Louise X I haven't seen that criticism anywhere in regards to Mendes.
It's called a split diopter the split focus effect
fuckin chumps
Very confused by their take on 1917 especially ralph and adum, ralph said he loved dunkirk because the story didnt matter at all and it was about the situation the characters were in and the technical side made it incredible ..but for 1917 the story is very surface level and there isnt much too it ? 1917 may have a surface level story but at least it has a story ,dunkirk is just action set piece after set piece with very loud music. Very undermining take I know, it's just inconsistent from what I've heard ralph say about similar movies, and as for adum, hes always said the story in movies is not nearly as important as the way its told, 1917 the one shot is way more crucial then birdman, birdman would have been a similar movie if it had cuts, 1917 is a COMPLETELY different movie if its told with time jumps and cut
Good points!
Yeah, it feels like Adam was really reaching for reasons to hate this movie for being a "basic war movie" (whatever that means), to the point where you could even hear IHE getting audibly frustrated/confused.
@@coletrainhetrick I see where you're coming from but, that perspective of birdman feels overly meta to me ? Almost like the film is patting itself on the back, which is subjective it's just what I got from it, 1917 feels much more like, its following the journey of these 2 soldiers, it's a war from their POV, the one shot makes it feel as if its us actually watching the events unfold with them rather than watching a movie, I think that is hammered home by the fact you rarely see german soldiers, and at the end, when he is running across the field, the camera is entirely focused on him rather than the battle going on in the background
Tywin Lannister if you haven’t noticed, Ralph has literally been sucking off adum for a while now. Listen to his joker review. Full textbook example.
@@danbam3411 Adum doesnt even dislike Joker though, and he's way more civil about it than Ralph, not to mention the differing takes on 1917 here
i watched an interview with aleksei kravchenko (flyora :3) and he said the first cow in those scenes was fine, they didn't hurt it, but the cow that was actually shot was very sick and they were going to put it down anyway
I’ve never felt true hatred until I saw Come and See
A future possible recommendation that would be great is Fritz the Cat by Ralph Bakshi, it’s one of the greatest animated films ever made. Also the first X-rated animated film ever made ;)
I coulda swore they talked about fritz the cat already
I love the movie. I feel like ralph definitely would but idk about alex and adam
I’m hoping for “Coonskin” tho!
No. Oh my god no. I made the mistake of trying to watch Fritz The Cat. It's gross-out humor and furry porn. It's just vulgarity for its own sake. It's like a Friedberg and Seltzer animated work. Same style of writing and jokes, same utter lack of logic or cohesion. Garbage movie.
Intelligence Paradigm did you miss the entire point of the movie? Furry porn? It came out in 1972 dipshit
One thing I i hope you guys get on a second watch is the ending is him ”going back in time” each shot is like one year until he gets to the 20s when it starts to jump in greater years. When he sees the picture of baby Hitler he realizes that he has somewhat become the monsters who killed his family and just walks away and joins his unit.
Cold crappy January... perfect remedy for feeling so blue = hot drink, hot water bottle and three cheeky chaps on Sardonicast. Thank you for making my day.
Channel Criswell does a great video on Come and See talking about the sound
I was thinking the same thing, also i'm surprise they didn't talk about the sound enginering of this movie to enhace subjetivity
slavoj zizek had a good comment once regarding the laugh track. he used robert pfaller's theory of interpassivity. im too drunk to write this down coherently, but the point is that when a working class person comes home and turns on the tv he has no energy left to laugh at funny stuff. enter canned laughter, which does the job for you and you feel like you had a good time even though you haven't laughed once
I was hoping for a review of EFAPs review of Ralph's review so I could review
longman holds ralphs feet to fire
...
its *_SUPER_* *EFFECTIVE*
Is that supposed be Alfred?
@@thewickerman5121
Bruce : "I am now, Alfred"
Man, I disagree with a lot of the negatives brought up about 1917, however I do feel like Alex brought up a lot of things that I personally felt about the movie (it feeling like Lord of The Rings, Blake wanting to give water because he is like a naive child) although I did like it a lot more than them this time around unfortunately
I hope Adam sees 1917 now with the right expectations. It seems he went just wanting a movie that never was. And Im still confused about which part of the promotion of the movie said it was one take; the first reviewers of the movie brought that up but that's it.
He watched their promo reel which I guess focused a lot on the production and behind the scenes they talked about it a lot. I didn't think it was advertised that way, but he's referring to that reel.
I still think his quickie review was incredibly picky and harsh, and even a little inconsistent. I thought it was a great film. Not perfect, but pretty good.
The marketing of the film focused a lot on this gimmick - it's the first ad I saw, they ran multiple 'behind the scenes' bits on TH-cam ads talking about how difficult it was to pull off, etc. It really gave the impression that the entire film was going to be one take. You're confused because you were unaware, it happens to the best of us.
I don't know how this movie was advertised in the UK and Canada but in Australia for '1917' the single take aspect wasn't advertised at all.
What's funny for me is that I've never been a fan of Thomas Newman's music, and I tried listening to his "best of scores" people have been recommending me for years. While I respect the dude on his craft, I could never get into his scores. Whereas "1917", that was the first time I could not only remember some of the tracks, but also loved them both in the context of the film and on their own. I could even say that his quote on quote "cheesy" moments fit better here and work with what the film is going for, compared to his other work like "The Shawshank Redemption", "American Beauty", "Skyfall", or even "Finding Nemo". So to hear you guys say his music was the weakest part surprises me, as I felt that was one of the more stronger aspects of the film.
I appreciate you stating your difference of opinion like a normal human
They shot the cow for real for this movie on camera while the actor and cameraman was 2 meters away. So if course they dragged the girl for real. They also didn't have the correct reaction from the public then being dragged to the church, and it was a church not the barn, so they put the rumour out that the filmmakers can actually lot the church on fire. And they had that accurate reaction
I don't know how this movie was advertised in the UK and Canada but in Australia for '1917' the single take aspect wasn't advertised at all.
One of the Nazi soldiers that gets shot near the end says ''It all starts with the children'' referring to Judaism. I think this is why we see the baby picture of Adolf. The camera pans up and then looks at the face of his mother. I believe the director was putting into question where evil comes from with that shot.
He's not just talk about Jews. Part of Nazi racial hierarchy is that slavs are also part of the inferior races, so he is referring to the non-Jewish Belarussians as well.
Have you guys considered watching and reviewing Threads (1984)? It’s a made-for-tv docudrama about the impacts of nuclear war on the working class city of Sheffield, England. Easily one of the most frightening and disturbing films I’ve ever watched. It’s like a NOVA episode from Hell.
It’s also streaming on Shudder
I saw an essay on Come and See. That alone was traumatising.
1:00:10 Those are real bullets being shot from machine guns, real tracers come in a variety of colours the two most prominent during the 40s being Red, Green. Though White is also another very commonly used colour.
Star Wars used the colours of red and green because those were the the two colours used by American and German Machine guns in their aircraft (and on the ground) which there space craft were emulating. Though because people now associate those colours to being "laser guns", films and games tend to stay away from them and tend to use white or yellow/orange colour.
Speaking of Star Wars - normally when you see someone or thing get shot in a film you have a squib go off and you get a spurt of blood and it's a big dramatic thing, etc- what Come and See depicts is the opposite and I've always found the scene with the cow more illustrative and important as a result of this. When the cow gets hit, the tracer just disappears into this big meaty beast and the viewer may not even register what's happened at first, it's understated and arbitrary - it LOOKS like someone getting hit with a blast bolt in Star Wars because we've been so conditioned to see the squibs and the dramatics, but in reality this isn't necessarily the case when someone is hit.
The entry wound is always smaller than the exit and both can be easily obscured by hair, fur, clothing, etc - so when someone drops it wont necessarily be a big thing. They'll just drop like a sack of shit and that's it. Arbitrary, understated - horrific in its LACK of fan-fare.
If you watch "Come and see" you WILL have a nightmare that night, I just did
You won't have a nightmare unless this is literally the first slightly troubling thing you've ever encountered in your life. I was told I would see a horrific war masterpiece, I got a weird cooky Russian film that shows nothing and implies everything. Maybe being a soviet production limited what they could do but seriously I was expecting something like the rape scene from redacted and yeah nothing in the film comes even close to being traumatising, it's all shit you've seen in other war films, it's not a bad movie but it's not what everyone keeps saying it is.
I watched it at night and god my nightmares were gut wrenching to deal with
Come and See is the most crushing shit I've ever seen, every single Wehrmacht/SS apologist should be forced to watch it
theyre just gonna deny these crimes...
@@rice_isnice4489 at best
"Filmbros" have their annoying characteristics, but I can't imagine liking something like Pulp Fiction less because it's big with that crowd. The thing about great movies is that a lot of people will love them regardless of whether those people are dickheads or not.
@Peachy Parasite Well, think of a "bro," someone who uses the words "sick," "dope" and, of course, "bro" at a high frequency and really wants to be black (this applies to people of any other race, really). A filmbro is that guy, only he also loves movies. He probably tends to have specific tastes that usually include Fight Club, Se7en, everything made by Tarantino and Nolan, and everything made by Scorsese from Goodfellas onward.
This what I could come up with, but there's no clear definition as far as I can tell. More than anything, you know a filmbro when you see one. There's nothing wrong with being a filmbro. They just tend to exhibit certain characteristics, as many groups of people defined by their characteristics do. Sometimes filmbros, in my opinion, can be annoying, but so can anyone. Their annoying characteristics are just so recognizable and predictable.
I wish Adam would let the other two express their views more without interrupting them or immediately dismissing them out of hand.
Did we watch the same podcast?
i think youre saying that more out of disagreement with adam, at the same time he is usually the dominant one in discussion.i didnt think he is dismissing their views he just didnt bother to say "wow, good point, i respect that opinion" before replying
Linus Eldridge he didn’t
@@themasher4821 Sam Mendes is no PTA
my favorite shot in come and see was when they took a picture of flyora's entire squad.
The film did not show the worst, I highly recommend people to research the eastern front, both sides were just full of carnage.
The movie Primer shows us that a mind-blowing brilliant movie doesn't need hundreds of millions of dollars. I fuckin love that movie and his budget was like $7000. Amazing.
I believe you could show someone parts of come and see and pass it off as real footage, and they'd believe you. Specifically the ending where they are marching trough the forest
Today's lesson: don't market your film so you'll get a one point higher score from Adum! I mean, seriously? Of course it's not *literally* one shot, but how the hell else are you gonna describe the way the film was edited? Seems like a rather minor thing to get upset over.
Personally I stopped noticing the obvious scene cuts after a while. I was mostly just impressed (and legitimately terrified) at the impact that many of the scenes had on me. I really felt the impending danger when they first stuck their heads above the edge of the front line trench - I cried when the first Corporal died - I felt the claustrophobia when he was hiding from snipers - I felt the bliss when he sat down at the song without anyone even noticing him
The fact that the question is asked at 1:19:17 only raises my suspicions further.
I didn't realize at first that Ralph was in this - I clicked on the video randomly and while I thought the voice sounded uncannily familiar, Ralph generally just sounds like everyone I grew up with in Ozone Park so I couldn't place it. That said, a few things of note about Come and See - the earliest use of steadicam that I've come across. Not sure if they invented a rig that's basically steadicam or what but the camera is synced so well to the little movements of the characters in those face shots that I'm pretty sure that's what's going on there, steadicam in 1985 (earlier, actually, because the film wasn't released for like five years) so that's pretty cool.
Another thing, an aspect that's pretty important to the film but that you guys may have missed - what we see in the film isn't necessarily what's actually going on - we're in the headspace of Flyora for the entirety of the movie and a lot of the absurdist aspects - the sound, the exaggeration of facial expressions - it's all meant to invoke that state of terror or panic where time seems to slow down and the mind focuses on minute, sometimes pointless details. I actually think viewing the film as someone not from Belarus or Eastern Europe and not having a firm grasp on the culture actually adds to the strangeness of the film and benefits it in this way - it can come off as almost a fantasy piece in this way and I think it's to the film's benefit.
Also, the earliest instance of the "shell-shock ear-whining" audio that Steven Spielberg will rip off and subsequently make a trope of war films.
The vehicles don't seem period-accurate (I'm big into this stuff) but from what I've read (and what I've seen in the film itself) the uniforms are INCREDIBLY accurate, as well as the firearms. From what I've read all of that stuff was basically taken straight from German POWs and the like - stored in warehouses for decades until unpacked for use in the film so they're all legitimate. There's a mix of regular Red Army uniforms, German Wehrmacht and SS uniforms, civilian clothing - even Italian or maybe Polish uniforms sprinkled around with civvie clothes which is what Partisans would wear and the German unit in the film (which is based on the very real, and very awful) Dirlewanger unit is very accurate as well - being SS and being a partisan-hunting unit, they would have to scrounge together their own firearms from captured stock and from whatever was lying around.
The tracer shots are beautiful, and I've always thought the look of tracers bouncing off into the distance has a scary sort of beauty to it - that's what this film does right that I've never seen done before, the violence is overbearing and absurd in its alien nature to the viewer, and as shown in the shooting of the cow - incredibly arbitrary.
Someone gets shot in a film and the squib goes off and there's a spurt or maybe some chunks and the victim goes down and you see it, but when the cow gets hit the viewer may not even realize what's happened because the tracer just disappears into the cow and you don't see the entrance wound from that distance and for a split second the COW ITSELF doesn't realize it's been hit and when it does it lets out a jump. No gore, or viscera - the cow just drops and suffers. To me that is more illustrative than the big shocking finale sequence because that's the film at its most truthful - it's real, you see this creature get hit with a very real tracer and die over the course of that sequence in the field. The body begins to malfunction (the bit with the eye) and it goes into its death rattle - which means the death of the people in that swamp - and while it's just a fucking cow and I'm not a bleeding heart necessarily (I'm not going to cry over one cow dying just because I happen to see it while I'm perfectly fine eating meat I don't see butchered - I think that's hypocritical), the analogy is evident - I know that people die just the same. It's both the film at perhaps its most morally dubious and questionable (putting a child in that predicament; killing an animal for the sake of the film) but also at its most important and illustrative of that title - Come and See - you've bought your ticket, now bear witness.
Officially there are now enough episodes for you to watch for entire year if you watch 1 episode a week
I'm going to go ahead and say before hearing your thoughts, but 1917 is probably my favorite film of the year - and Nightingale, Irishman and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood were all 10/10s for me - but 1917 was an emotionally moving experience. Sure it had some flaws in terms of feasibility and of course the controversy of the Sikh soldier not being in a Sikh regiment, as well as that letter somehow remaining dry, but in a way i felt as though the film wasn't trying to be technically realistic, but rather emotionally realistic, and in that it succeeded flawlessly. One of the best war films ever made in my not so humble opinion, the two characters subtle development was fantastic, and how Mckay was not nominated for an Oscar is beyond me. Of course, the cinematography by Deakins is what makes the film truly astounding (that shot where it transitions to night and pans out the window). On par with his work on BR2049. The usage of the music didn't bother me, in fact it felt appropriate. This is a true cinematic experience, it's a roller coaster, but in the best way, not like that MCU schlock. A brilliant film with brilliant acting, brilliant directing, brilliant cinematography, and an emotional core that will linger with me. I used to rank Dunkirk as my 2nd favorite war film - behind Apocalypse Now - but 1917 takes it's place. I know the film has flaws, and i know the one shot thing is still experimental, but to me it was a pure experience, it's why i watch films, the atmosphere, the emotions, the situation it invests you in, if your'e a young lad like myself around that age, you cant help but wonder what the hell you'd do in that situation. The arc of Scofield was really really touching, to quote Drive, it depicts A Real Hero. Men like him existed, men like him still exist, goodness prevails even in the most hideous of circumstances. Perhaps my passion for this film will die down when i see it some more times, but i doubt it. may this film immortalize the common morality and courage, as well as struggles, spread across humanity, throughout all of time.
Copypasta?
I really don't know what marketing Adam saw that would make him think 1917 was gonna be an art film lmao
Not an art film, but one that didn't rely on the one-r gimmick (that by now is very overdone in TV and cinema) - he really should've known better because the marketing of the film focused on this (and never expect depth from a film named after a fucking year).
Exactly.
Since you guys talked about Mr. Robot, can you guys talk about BoJack Horseman in a future episode?
Having watched Come and See last night. I wonder how does this compare to Thin Red Line with its anti war message?
I think The Thin Red Line focuses more on the relationship between war and nature whereas Come and See is about the relationship between war and people.
Wow Adum I think you might have copied someone else's intro...
I absolutely love wizards! It’s such a fantastic film and I’m so happy Adum recommended it.
The film was reversed when he shot the portrait of Hitler. It was like he wanted to undo all of the horrors.
On 1917 - as someone who has a deep love of history and has pretty much spent my life devoted to it - I have a rule of thumb when it comes to war films - basically, if the title of the film is a major battle from a war - there's a very good chance it's going to suck from an historical perspective - there are notable exceptions (possibly including Dunkirk, probably not) - but major battle names always give a lofty expectation that you can't deliver on, there's just too much for a film to capture - so imagine taking that rule of thumb and seeing a film whose title is the biggest year of the second-biggest conflict in human history. Just the year.
That's a little too grandiose for me - there was a LOT going on in 1917 so just focusing on this curated tale of strapping British lads doing the whole Western Front thing - that's the most overdone part of WWI. You could show literally ANYTHING else that happened in 1917 and make a novel film out of it but we keep doing the same shit over and over again and on concept alone it's hard to walk into the movie theater with an open mind because the premise alone has already taken the sandpaper to me.
I would really love to see a discussion of Jojo rabbit. The film really resonated with me both comedically and emotionally but critical reception is mixed to say the least so it would be cool to hear some of their thoughts/ opinions.
I really loved it. I'm not sure that the guys would feel the same way though
Navarro Dodge he gave it a six. And Ralph hated it.
B B it’s a pretty mediocre film. The acting is stilted, the dialogues comes across as forced, the plot is predictable and the tone and style of the film rips off of Wes Anderson.
B B it’s not as terrible as joker thouhh
B B though
I had to think really hard to remember what Parasite is and why there would be a bidding war over it. I have however seen Come and See 5 times.
The fact that the question is asked at 1:19:17 only further raises my suspicions.
There weren't any big stars in Avatar.
Sigourney Weaver whatever.
Avatar did establish the typecast for Zoe Saldana to be a character in body paint
Awww man, Wizards is a great film! I had to see it for an art class, and my one friend decided to do LSD before hand, and when the film was over and the lights in the theater came back on, he was just sitting there gripping the arms of his seat.
I love how they talk about how to cheat a woman being pulled with her hair few seconds after they uncover that live bullets were used in the movie. Dudes, there was no rope there.
Adam's view of 1917 is one of his worst takes he's had in a while.
Agreed
Yes I agree most of the time with Adam but this time he doesn’t like a movie I like so he was WRONG
@@thepretentiouscinephile6492 nah, we all know adum is a very critical critic, not a bash, just establishing. he definitely had unrealistic expectations, idk how he thought he was gonna get an art film
It's just, like, his opinion man
@The Logomaker hes made some pretty mediocre films really
I've seen Wizards in theaters during a film festival, with a Q&A with Ralph Bakshi following it with some "mild" pot smoke in the air from the back of the theater. I won't spoil it, but I'm not sure you all will love it. I think it will be appreciated for what it is though. I liked it (6.5/10), but I like American POP (8.5/10) way more.
Mr. Bakshi was really interesting to listen too. He pretty much told everyone straight how difficult it is now a days to make a film compared to when he was doing it. To paraphrase him some he flat out paid artists for help and the thing he thinks ruined it was all the corporations and lawyers getting involved like the RIAA. I got nervous when I was in the crowd that my hand started to cramp lol.
As a UK viewer is there any way for me to watch Come and See? It only appears to be available to the USA on Criterion, and I have been unable to find a Region B DVD for it.
I mean Alex has seen it so there must be some way of viewing it in the UK?
Type in this in Google смотреть Иди и смотри с английскими субтитрами. It means watch Come and see with English subtitles. Just copy past it to Google and you LL find it
I just received the criterion blu ray today. On the back of the case, it says it's both region A and B.
musicfilmhead90 Ah that’s interesting. It’s a bit annoying that the Criterion website doesn’t specify this, but thanks for the heads up.
Айдос Кашенов Yeah I’ve found the video you mean on FShare TV
I totally agreed with Adam. The only sequence that kinda took me out of it was the going through the mud part.
And, though I love the whole “going back in time” thing, but I think they cycled through a little too much footage before they got to Hilter as a soldier and then a baby. Could’ve trimmed that back a little bit.
Look and see . . . Come and See. Masterpiece Film.
"I was hoping to see some art film."
Even after you watched the promo reel? He's just convinced it's bad, or least not great, but he protests TOO much. His criticism leans a bit too much toward subjective insults and not enough objective criticism (except the music, or that it's cheesy).
It's not what HE wanted, so he doesn't like it. And he talks about how he hates war movies and then says I wish it was [lists 3 other war movies]. But why are those movies better? Explain!
Here's another episode where Adam steamrolls Alex, and Ralph doesn't want to seem uncool so he ends up agreeing with everything somehow.
Exhibit a "the naked ape astounded by concept of subjectivity"
@@arr165 everyone is allowed an opinion. Someone who wants to build their platform as a film or art critic might also have the depth to explain their opinion, though.
objective critisism does not exist. This is a podcast where three friends come together to talk about movies so they're allowed to share their opinion.
@@hendriktackx8652 Adam's credibility doesn't exist, either
This ain't Roger and Ebert, he doesn't HAVE to be objective. He wants to shit on a film? Fine, none of these guys are an authority on the subject because they like films and have a podcast. They don't have to be objective, and it's unreasonable (meaning you'll just let yourself down) to expect that of them.
Kinda bummed they didn’t talk about uncut gems :/
Carter Gall it took Alex a while to see it, they’ll probably talk about it next episode
Furry Jellyfish that’s what I was thinking tbh
@@McGregor43 Its honestly so bad, been waiting to see Waves, The Lighthouse and Parasite but Odeon is only showing screening of parasite as a pre-interview one and the other two probably won't show near me - despite advertisement.
@@McGregor43 *RIGHT?! THE UK STILL HASN'T HAD A SCREENING FOR THE LIGHTHOUSE YET!*
Furry Jellyfish you’re kidding right?
Imagine the american remake of Parasite as described in the joke actually happening but the ending is still the same as the original
I randomly watched Wizards last week, what a coincidence, I'll have watched the recommended movie for once
Poor Adum always references the dankest of memes and Alex and Ralph never get them
Adam's take on 1917 is pretty bad
@Navarro Dodge Sure, but he said the movie lacked meticulous coordination and great cinematography when a lot of the movie was built on that. It's plot was super basic, totally, its just some of his gripes seem random and don't make much sense.
@Navarro Dodge he was nitpicking, you can tell
To add to what theodstking said, YMS stated that the One shot technique didnt feel like it added to the film. I vehemently disagree with that notion, as you feel like because they cannot cut that you are with the soldiers thru every step of the journey, you experience the tension build as they are thrust into dangerous and unknown areas. If you add cuts to the that its going to take away the feeling of time passing slowly and every step of the journey.
It’s Belarusian
I wonder what Adam and Alex think of Ralph's controversial Joker review.
Lol controversial
More like terrible not just in his bad takes on the movie but terrible in editing and consistency in general for the video. My favorite worst line from ralph -> “is this supposed to be alfred” then jumps to next scene... XD
th-cam.com/video/oaUwE677atk/w-d-xo.html
Well, he did get very high dislike ratio and many negative comments on that video, I would say it fits the definition.
Marko Mihin i think alex is part of the reason why Ralph has such a bad take on the joker movie. Not only that but I believe that the reason the editing and the script for the video is so bad because ralph didn’t want to make a video on it but shat one out anyway with little effort because he already started it but wanted to get it over with.
My issue isn't the fact that his shitting on the joker
My issue with the video is that it feels very unforcus and annoyingly edited
The one-shot gimmick was to put you in the perspective of the two main characters. That's the reason why there was a cut to black, because one of the soldiers was knocked unconscious.
And at that point I wouldn't even call it a gimmick. It's crucial to the film.
You guys always complain about the effects of capitalism but never actually mention it's name.
to be fair they arent an outright political channel, but at this point with the amount of anti-capitalism this area of the media i think people ought to actually articulate their problems with it rather than just bash the best economic and social system ever made thus far relentlessly out of simple tribalism and parroting. capitalism is a flawed system and if left unchecked can dispossess people, however its as i said also the best system we have ever created, and it is one that never stops growing and developing and making progress, unlike every other system which is stagnant, mainly nationalism and marxist-horseshit. capitalism with a degree of, call it "socialist" intervention, i.e enough money, but not too much, is gathered from the exceedingly wealthy (i.e people and monopolies that simply have too much dosh to know what to do with, im looking at you jeff bezos) to fund for everyone to be supplied with the essentials - essentials which, thanks to the nature of capitalism will improve in quality over time - is (while that was a very oversimplified description missing out key elements) i repeat, the best possible system we have thus far. there needs to be a degree, a strong degree, of people earning what they have, beyond the essentials, and there are always those that suffer unduly. but all humans suffer, what makes one human different to another is how they respond to the suffering.
@@_Azagoth_ Marxism is a scientific analysis of capitalistic mode of production and class structure, not some evil attack on western values or whatever like peterson or shapiro or whoever you got this vague rant from would have you believe. And as we're seeing now in the final stages of capitalism, he was absolutely correct in his analysis. Wealth inequality is enormous, wage growth is stagnant, workers work longer hours for less pay and now the environment cannot handle the relentless exploitation of the profit motive. Marx observed these contradictions in capitalism and concluded that socialism was the natural successor of capitalism. As for other systems being stagnant, how do you justify the Soviet union and China industrialising in a single generation and becoming world powers in a relatively short amount of time? Or Nordic countries being very successful? This is a silly criticism and I'd suggest you'd actually learn about leftist analysis instead of just repeating whatever these TH-cam pundits say where you very obviously got this information from.
@@timmortal yeah, true. Maybe they ought to mention it occasionally, just to give these anti-sjw guys something to think about. Hint, the reason we're getting the same types of movies over and over again and increasingly huge monopolies on the film industry is because of capitalism.
@@timmortal as an anti-sjw (not that i hate them as individuals, i just strongly disagree with the common sjw beliefs) myself, it wouldnt scare me away, im willing to hear other perspectives, i think everyone has a right to criticize the system. i just think social justice isnt an apt, and is often a malicious, attempt at a solution.
@@apuffin9545 i dont think its just because of capitalism, as in i dont see socialism solving the issue. look at the soviet union and china for example. yeah not exactly a high bar or politically diverse range of mainstream films, particularly china even now. i think though it is amplified by corrupt capitalism, and i do despise disneys power as a monopoly, i think the answer lies in people seeking out socially indie films and such and making them more popular. if Disney want to continue with the roller-coaster market, let us people invest in the cinema market, that still exists and is arguably in my view stronger than ever due to the accessibility, both for creators and consumers. everything falls eventually. Disney will fall out of favor, and will dissipate, unless it improves, and if it does improve, then thered be no issue. in capitalism in film and gaming you vote with your wallet, in a socialist state you dont get to vote in such art mediums, the state decides what is and isnt acceptable in being made. as for a marxist utopia? well thatd have to be feasibly possible first to consider that option.
You guys should definitely watch the Chinese movie City of Life and Death from 2009.
Is this supposed to be an episode of Sardonicast?
MKBones no this is supposed to be Alfred
Ni this is patrick