It was the DP who set up the shot, which was extremely complicated to pull off. Either they didn't notice the tilt or they decided it wasn't worth another take because only one nerd out of a million would notice it.
Considering the typical fart sniffer that enjoys Wes Anderson films it's funny to see people busting someone's chops for being overly critical of a fart sniffing portion of one of his films. I'd think that was exactly the point.
It’s 2025, not 2005.
All the real fart sniffers have moved on to A24 and Neon “fiLms”
Some of them, for sure. But they sure do attract the fart sniffers.
...I've never seen a group of fanatics fawn over and masturbate to a director's work like Anderson's do (maybe Tarantino). It's almost delightfully preposterous.
A24 is a production company with a variety of artists and styles. It has its artsy fartsy time-wasters like The Green Knight, but Wes Anderson is the same formula of 'quirky + surreal + [insert setting] = Wes Anderson drivel'.
Wes Anderson movies suck.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
The Following User Says Thank You to Yamer For This Useful Post:
...I've never seen a group of fanatics fawn over and masturbate to a director's work like Anderson's do (maybe Tarantino). It's almost delightfully preposterous.
A24 is a production company with a variety of artists and styles. It has its artsy fartsy time-wasters like The Green Knight, but Wes Anderson is the same formula of 'quirky + surreal + [insert setting] = Wes Anderson drivel'.
Wes Anderson movies suck.
That’s why A24 fans are actually more fart sniffy. If you like one Wes Anderson movie, chances are you’re going to like them all, or if you don’t you likely won’t.
But A24 is just a production company. “Nobody is doing it like A24!” yeah I guess. I get it with something like Criterion that has like a post-release good movie niche. A24 produces a lot of pretentious slop that nobody would care about if it was produced by Sony Pictures Classics.
That’s why A24 fans are actually more fart sniffy. If you like one Wes Anderson movie, chances are you’re going to like them all, or if you don’t you likely won’t.
But A24 is just a production company. “Nobody is doing it like A24!” yeah I guess. I get it with something like Criterion that has like a post-release good movie niche. A24 produces a lot of pretentious slop that nobody would care about if it was produced by Sony Pictures Classics.
It is a little weird to blanket continual praise on a production company, but I view that more of being a fan of a team than the cultish worship of a director.
Either way, they're both fallible, but in the end I have gotten far more hours of enjoyment from A24's releases than I have Anderson's.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
The Following User Says Thank You to Yamer For This Useful Post:
I do find it interesting which posters are lamenting the 'fart sniffers.'
“People aren’t talking about Hubie Halloween! Better make things personal!”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
It is a little weird to blanket continual praise on a production company, but I view that more of being a fan of a team than the cultish worship of a director.
Either way, they're both fallible, but in the end I have gotten far more hours of enjoyment from A24's releases than I have Anderson's.
I should hope so at 200~ films vs 12 lol.
But same, even as someone who enjoys Anderson movies. And I’m never surprised when I love a movie and it turns out it was an A24 but like, I also stopped seeking out movies because of production/distribution companies vs directors/writers/actors because you realize the former is just gonna include a lot of crap people are going to pretend is good regardless.
Jurassic World: Rebirth out on Amazon....it is an awful movie.
The first scene is a lab making hybrid/mutant dinosaurs, which instantly pisses me off as dinosaurs are scary/exciting enough. Stop making hybrids. They create some dinosaur that's too large and mutated to be shown to the public, but keep it around for...reasons. It's only purpose in life is to be large and ornery.
They've named this thing "Distortus Rex". Which means deformed king. I'd be pissed off too if that was my name. It also doesn't make any sense. Supposedly this thing would be an offshoot of a T. Rex, so you'd keep the Tyrannosaurus Genera and change the species or sub-species name, depending on how mutated this thing was. So Tyrannosaurus Distortus or Tyrannosaurus Rex Distortus might be correct. I guess that doesn't sound as cool. These guys are also crappy scientists.
They're also making larger flying Velociraptors. Once again, for reasons. It's an animal they've had a lot of trouble controlling in the past, but lets make it stronger and harder to contain for kicks. These animals also defy the laws of physics, as they manage to fly with large body weights and relatively small wings. They look like dragons from GoT with smaller wings...it's dumb. Especially as they've already cloned actual pterosaurs.
Next we learn that the dinosaurs that were released all over the world in the other films are actually dying, as they don't like modern air and climate after all. They survive in the equatorial zone, as supposedly there's more oxygen there (there isn't, in fact, less). People have abandoned these zones and left them to the dinosaurs. The countries in the equatorial zones with the highest populations are in Africa. Has most of Africa been abandoned? They don't deal with that.
I also never really got the whole idea of just sharing the planet with dangerous dinosaurs. It seemed to be the idea of environmentalists, but was the movie agreeing with that movement? It seemed be making fun of environmentalists for pushing the idea of sharing the planet (including cities) with dinosaurs. I don't know, but sharing cities with predatory dinosaurs is not a good idea.
The premise of the movie is that an evil corporation wants to make a heart medicine, but they need samples from the three largest dinosaurs of the land, sea and air to do so. These animals are only found on some remote and dangerous island, so they recruit ScarJo to handle the job.
In the previous scene they showed a huge theropod loose in a city. Apparently, that blood is no good, it has to be from the largest dinosaur....of each type. Even though we don't know what the largest dinosaur was, as we only know the largest one discovered in the fossil record, or so we presume based on our fragmented taxonomy. No reason for why the blood of a dinosaur 80% as large can't be used to create magic heart medicine.
They settle on the following 3 "dinosaurs" that blood samples need to be collected from:
1. Titanosaurus: Not a species of dinosaur, but a genera. I'll write that one off as that might be just what the public calls this dinosaur.
2. Quetzalcoatlus: Not a dinosaur. A flying reptile.
3. Mosasaur: Definitely not a dinosaur. In fact, more closely related to snakes and turtles than to dinosaurs.
I have no idea why blood samples from these 3 very distinct groups of reptiles can make heart medicine for humans. There's no scientific basis for that. I know I'm nitpicking at the science, but Michael Crichton put so much effort into the science of the first novel/film that I can't help but hold this franchise to some kind of a standard.
Before going to the island ScarJo uses her wiles to recruit a group of extremely muscular black men from Suriname. All of these people serve as red shirts throughout the film.
Then they finally make their way to the island....they don't actually get there for an hour. It takes an actual hour before they step foot on the island. This movie is about 2.5 hours long.
The dialogue from the movie is absolutely awful. I think they did that on purpose, as they would have a scene with exceptionally bad dialogue and then play what seemed to be purposely cheesy music.
The tone of the movie was weird. They had a lot more horror and gore than previous JP films, but also jokes for young kids too. The movie was set in modern day, but a lot of the characters at times spoke and dressed like they were in an old timey explorer adventure. The movie seemed to be paying homage to the 2005 Jack Black King Kong film. There were ancient ruins on the island, that they never explained in any way.
The writers constantly sacrificed realism and mood for comedy. There's one scene where a guy goes to urinate and is stalked by raptors while doing so. He's saved by a flying raptor who kills the other raptors....except that he's only a few feet away from where he's sleeping with a family, that includes an 8 year old kid. They all go back to sleeping at that site after he's done urinating.
The constant corniness, bad dialogue and cuts into bad music lead me to conclude that this movie was purposely bad. They were going for the same vibe as those "Shark vs. Giant Octopus" type movies from the early 2010s. Or maybe someone involved in the production realized how bad this was partway through, hated their life and added the extra cheese elements as an F U?
The culprit in all of this seems to be the writer, David Koepp. For whatever reason, Spielberg loves this guy, and has given him free reign to destroy cinema. Not only was he responsible for this piece of crap, his other credits include:
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Mummy (2017)
Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit
War of the Worlds (2005)
This guy goes around ruining movie franchises, and I don't understand how this has been allowed to continue. Maybe when Spielberg decides that he doesn't want a franchise to continue, he gets David Koepp inserted as the lead writer to kill it?
Maybe if you want to see ScarJo in a sweaty tanktop check this out. There's another female lead, but she plays a college girl (she's actually 24) so the writers decided to cover her up in a large t-shirt the whole time. That t-shirt is wet most of the time though. So once again, I'm totally confused as to the tone of this film.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Ballad of a Small Player - I actually enjoyed this movie quite a bit, only to find out it is getting killed in reviews. Maybe showing a bit of bias towards Colin Farrell as I enjoy most of his movies. Movie also was beautifully shot. Makes sense given Edward Berger also directed Conclave/All Quiet on the Western Front.
Ballad of a Small Player - I actually enjoyed this movie quite a bit, only to find out it is getting killed in reviews. Maybe showing a bit of bias towards Colin Farrell as I enjoy most of his movies. Movie also was beautifully shot. Makes sense given Edward Berger also directed Conclave/All Quiet on the Western Front.
It was pretty good and didn't hold your hand. The average Netflix content viewer would have been completely lost.
The Following User Says Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
Speaking of A24.. Highest 2 Lowest on Apple was really bad. And I watched it immediately after Ballad of a Small Player (Netflix, and not A24), which was just dreadful, so there's a good chance Highest didn't even seem as bad as it actually was.
