Tramuzgan's shills and rants

→ in
Tools    





You mean me? Kei's cousin?
Also I love the **** in A****aka makes it impossible to spell his name
I know what you mean. I actually added an extra "I" to work around the censor when I mentioned him briefly in my review of Nausicaš of the Valley of the Wind.



Looks like somebody's trying to trigger Guap.
I don't know who that is
HUGE anime lover, especially Miyazaki (from what Iíve read in his reviews and posts).



Tramuzgan's Avatar
Di je Karlo?
Good lord... Princess Mononoke is one of my top ten animated movies of all time, so why donít I just touch on what I wrote on my review.

First, we completely disagree character wise.
I said:
ďWhat I think I like most about Miyazaki's style is his way of putting depth and ambiguity into his characters. Take Lady Eboshi, the strong leader of Iron Town who seeks to destroy all nature on the mountain top in order for humans to prosper. At the beginning, she is portrayed as a ruthless seeker of power, and a lust for wealth. But as we explore more, we also discover more facets to her personality. The townspeople fiercely defend her, and she is not only a good leader, she is also kind to cripples and the injured. She makes sure everyone is provided for and she gives everyone fair jobs. While she has a huge flaw - her need for destruction on the mountain - she clearly has good sides too.

That is only one example. San, or Princess Mononoke, is another great example of Miyazki's excellent character writing. San is a girl raised by wolves and taught to hate mankind. Her intentions are good - she seeks to preserve nature and the environment as humanity tries to take over. However, her often ruthless killing and blind stereotyping (of Prince A****aka notably) make her a very flawed character. So we have two major characters (both female, interestingly) on different sides of the conflict which are portrayed in a very similar ways - as a mixed bag of good and evil.Ē

So yeah, I love the characters.

Also youíve gotta give it at least a popcorn or two just for the animation. Come on, the artwork is just beautiful.

But of course youíre entitled to your opinion. It definitely takes itself seriously which can turn a lot of people off. And itís certainly not the masterpiece that Spirited Away is. But I still love it.
Character just being a ''mix of good and evil'' isn't enough to warrant praise. I'd rather have a believable and well-written fully evil character, like Hal Stewart from megamind, than a robotic morally grey character. Though, this kind of movie demands characters to be both believable written and morally complex. All the movies I named in the first paragraph are good examples of this.
And regarding the animation... I'm judging the movie as a whole, not as a collection of parts. The animation is great, true, but it didn't help ease the pain.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging you if you like the movie. Live and let live. I just want to clarify these things don't really impress me.



Good lord... Princess Mononoke is one of my top ten animated movies of all time, so why donít I just touch on what I wrote on my review.

First, we completely disagree character wise.
I said:
ďWhat I think I like most about Miyazaki's style is his way of putting depth and ambiguity into his characters. Take Lady Eboshi, the strong leader of Iron Town who seeks to destroy all nature on the mountain top in order for humans to prosper. At the beginning, she is portrayed as a ruthless seeker of power, and a lust for wealth. But as we explore more, we also discover more facets to her personality. The townspeople fiercely defend her, and she is not only a good leader, she is also kind to cripples and the injured. She makes sure everyone is provided for and she gives everyone fair jobs. While she has a huge flaw - her need for destruction on the mountain - she clearly has good sides too.

That is only one example. San, or Princess Mononoke, is another great example of Miyazki's excellent character writing. San is a girl raised by wolves and taught to hate mankind. Her intentions are good - she seeks to preserve nature and the environment as humanity tries to take over. However, her often ruthless killing and blind stereotyping (of Prince A****aka notably) make her a very flawed character. So we have two major characters (both female, interestingly) on different sides of the conflict which are portrayed in a very similar ways - as a mixed bag of good and evil.Ē

So yeah, I love the characters.

Also youíve gotta give it at least a popcorn or two just for the animation. Come on, the artwork is just beautiful.

But of course youíre entitled to your opinion. It definitely takes itself seriously which can turn a lot of people off. And itís certainly not the masterpiece that Spirited Away is. But I still love it.
Character just being a ''mix of good and evil'' isn't enough to warrant praise. I'd rather have a believable and well-written fully evil character, like Hal Stewart from megamind, than a robotic morally grey character. Though, this kind of movie demands characters to be both believable written and morally complex. All the movies I named in the first paragraph are good examples of this.
And regarding the animation... I'm judging the movie as a whole, not as a collection of parts. The animation is great, true, but it didn't help ease the pain.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging you if you like the movie. Live and let live. I just want to clarify these things don't really impress me.
Fair enough. I find the characters well written and believable, yes more so than that guy in Megamind



"Despite being intended exclusively for 10-year-old girls" seems like a pretty straight forward point which is what I was disagreeing with. As I said I think its actually a film like most of the directors output intended for a wide audience.
Miyazaki makes movies for himself. He makes movies about the stuff he likes and using the style he likes. He is an auteur who miraculously managed to became super popular.

He often claims they have a specific audience but he is not really serious in those statements. For example, Miyazaki claimed that Howls Moving Castle was aimed at "65 year old girls" because the main character is a teenager girl who is transformed into an old lady. In the case of Howls Moving Castle was the first movie he made after he turned 60 so the main character turning into an elderly person represents his own frustration with his aging.

In the case of Spirited Away he said the movie was a criticism of the contemporary spoiled youth which is represented by Chihiro. Miyazaki then gives Chihiro a lesson in "growing up" by turning her parents into pigs and being enslaved by a bathhouse of spirits. He said Chihiro was stronger than the average Japanese kid however since he claimed the typical Japanese youth wouldn't survive this harsh treatment.

A lot of the films intension I would say is using the fantastical setting to recreate the same kind of experiences in adults as a 10 year old would have being exposed to the normal adult world. The framing device of the film itself after all is the more everyday story of the family moving house and her coming to accept it.

If your looking for other anime aimed at an adult audience that isn't just concerned with "edginess" then I'd suggest Kon's work like Millennium Actress.
I personally do not see this children/adult divide. What I mean is that one should not have their entertainment and artistic experience constrained by his or her age. It is like saying that a movie is made only for Canadians. It is true that there are some movies that are consciously dumbed down because they are made "for children" but that only reflects the contempt of the creators regarding their intended audience.

Satoshi Kon is a good director for people who are not used to anime because he keeps the level of Japanese cultural tropes to a minimum. His movies are all excellent.



Not sure whether you got the idea that Mononoke is primarily an "anti war" film, to me it seems pretty clearly a film focused on man vs nature or of environmentalism vs humanism.

I wouldn't say its Miyzaki's deepest film in terms of characterisation(relative to something like Porco Rosso) yet I'd say theres clearly more to it than just its ideas. To me it seems like Miyzaki's main intension was to focus primarly on atmosphere and tone to tell his story which I think the film does very well indeed.



Tramuzgan's Avatar
Di je Karlo?
have you ever been on /tv/ tramuzgan?
Just a bunch of retards defending their ego with buzzwords and wojak edits. I don't know where that utopia of memes and banter I was promised is, but it sure isn't on 4chan



Tramuzgan's Avatar
Di je Karlo?
No comments on the megamind review? Okay. Next up is Conan the barbarian.
__________________
I'm the Yugoslav cinema guy. I dig through garbage. I look for gems.



Sorry, didn't see it before. I'm definitely surprised to see it get a perfect score. I can kind of understand that type of scoring system, though, where it's less "the best films get the highest ratings" and more "films get higher ratings for being the best version of themselves," which I suppose is what's happening here. I had the same approach when I gave Cloverfield
. I was thinking about how to rate it, and my brother said "would you change anything about it?" And I couldn't think of anything.

I thought MegaMind was fine, though ultimately one of those Shrek-like non-Pixar films there seems to have been a glut of the last 10-15 years. It's better than most, but didn't stick with me much, admittedly.



Tramuzgan's Avatar
Di je Karlo?
Sorry, didn't see it before. I'm definitely surprised to see it get a perfect score. I can kind of understand that type of scoring system, though, where it's less "the best films get the highest ratings" and more "films get higher ratings for being the best version of themselves," which I suppose is what's happening here.
You're both right and wrong. I give movies scores based on what I think of them after I dwell on them. The things Megamind does right are often taken for granted, and I began noticing them only after I took a step away from mainstream cinema. Up until that point I saw it as just a ''fun movie''.



Tramuzgan's Avatar
Di je Karlo?
Conan the Barbarian (1982)




You know that feeling when you wanna call something ''the best X of all time'', even though you know it isn't? That's how I feel about Conan. When I reflected upon it for the sake of this review, I noticed many blunders it makes, but I don't love it any less.

Let's address the negatives first: its supporting cast is forgettable. I know Conan had two sidekicks, but I don't even remember their names. One of them is a woman, and while there was no romantic subplot (thank Crom for that), the scenes that focus on her feel pointless. His male sidekick fares even worse; I don't even remember what he looks like. There's a handful of scenes with the same problem, like the one where he has sex with a witch. They just leave you wondering what the point was.
That, and that giant snake special effect was bad.


So, what did Conan the Barbarian do right? Three things:

1) The story. It's more than a typical revenge story, where a character is wronged and ventures off to get his revenge. That's a big part of Conan, sure, but it doesn't feel like an anecdote. It feels like Conan had a genuinely interesting life. We got to see him live as a regular boy, a slave, a celebrated gladiator, and much more. He worked, he traveled, he stole, he indulged in drink and whores, and so on. It's a full-fledged epic, no corners cut.

2) The tone. It's stoic, morose and unapologetically masculine. While I love energetic, kid-oriented fantasy movies (i.e. how to train your dragon), Conan provides a perfect counterweight. There are many long segments with no dialogue, letting the amazing score or the narration by Aku from Samurai Jack do the work. The dialogue that is there is equally serious, often even philosophical. The Riddle of Steel will always stick with me. It's a far cry from the corniness you'd expect when you see Arnie in leather briefs.

3) The core conflict. Both Conan are Thulsa Doom have interesting personalities. Conan wants revenge at all costs. He will stop at nothing and sacrifice everything. This anger and drive hits even harder when you find out that Tulsa Doom is completely unfazed by it. To him, maiming Conan's village was just another work day. It's not that he's unaware of how Conan feels, he just sees it through his warped world view, going on to point out how his drive for revenge is what gave him strength, in the same way an angry father would point out how much he gave his son.

As I've already stated, Conan the Barbarian isn't the best adventure movie out there, but it accomplishes things that'd make it worth seeing in a sea of superior adventure movies.