Iro's Film Diary

→ in
Tools    





But, Iro, do you really think we're all okay the way we are? I mean when you compare yourself to others and say that most people do what I'm criticising about you. But you remember me criticising Vicky about her "quality is subjective" attitude? Most people I just don't read their reviews because they don't interest me, but yours do. Though, at the same time they can infuriate me. But you can tell that I haven't really figured out why yet. But it's something to do with your factual approach to expressing your thoughts.

I thought my Barney analogy was pretty good lol. That Bicard expression though... You really didn't get my point about how to express a perspective as a perspective and identify the reason for the perspective instead of just saying it bluntly as a fact.

I don't think the way we are is okay. Look how much everyone criticises each other in general. There is always room for growth, and we all have many faults. I think everyone should strive for personal development.



I don't think the way we are is okay. Look how much everyone criticises each other in general. There is always room for growth, and we all have many faults. I think everyone should strive for personal development.
Question yourself before questioning others.
__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel



Welcome to the human race...
*laughs* WELP, not exactly surprising.

I will say that I greatly appreciated Kung Fury's blend of 80/90s inspirations from Streets of Rage to Conan the Barbarian to Hackers to Mortal Kombat to Lethal Weapon to Dino Riders.

To me it felt like a giant messy screw-everything tribute to that era and I enjoyed it to that end.
I'll appreciate the inspirations, sure, but not if they don't cohere into something watchable. Kung Fury sort of has the look down (though its emphasis on crude CG over practical effects does kind of undermine the '80s-ness of it all) but it's still a pretty contrived and soulless excuse for a genre parody that doesn't bring anything new to the table (but it's still better than Disaster Movie). I'd give it a
nowadays, though.

Haven't seen Danger 5 though, so I can't comment on originality. I will say that of anything in Kung Fury I was most put off by the specific references to Knight Rider and 2001: A Space Odyssey.
I think it was pretty telling that the one time Kung Fury actually got a laugh out of me was the scene where Hitler killed the police chief by firing a gun down the phone, which naturally reminded me of this Danger 5 scene:



That particular clip was uploaded in 2011. It's one thing if they're both Hitler-killing retro parodies, but for Kung Fury to lift the actual jokes is definitely another.

But, Iro, do you really think we're all okay the way we are? I mean when you compare yourself to others and say that most people do what I'm criticising about you. But you remember me criticising Vicky about her "quality is subjective" attitude? Most people I just don't read their reviews because they don't interest me, but yours do. Though, at the same time they can infuriate me. But you can tell that I haven't really figured out why yet. But it's something to do with your factual approach to expressing your thoughts.
Hell if I know. I'm too busy working on my own reviews to read anyone else's.

I thought my Barney analogy was pretty good lol. That Bicard expression though... You really didn't get my point about how to express a perspective as a perspective and identify the reason for the perspective instead of just saying it bluntly as a fact.
Let me just repeat your original analogy here so nobody has to flick back and forth:

"If a person is color blind and reads that Barney is blue and then goes around saying Barney is blue, they are wrong. But if they go around saying they think he's blue because they read it somewhere and also state that they are colorblind, then they are right, and they aren't missleading people."

The reason I considered your original analogy nonsensical is because it revolves around a hypothetical person's thinking that an incorrect statement as an empirical fact is comparable to anybody holding a subjective opinion. This person reads somewhere that Barney is blue, which implies that they are only perceiving text; nowhere does it specify that they look at actual images of Barney and see him as blue instead of purple. That would be like me telling everyone that a movie is objectively bad because I read a single negative review of it yet have not actually seen it myself. That's where your analogy falls apart - because an objective fact like Barney being purple can't be compared to something as inherently open to subjective interpretation as a movie.

I don't think the way we are is okay. Look how much everyone criticises each other in general. There is always room for growth, and we all have many faults. I think everyone should strive for personal development.
I'd argue that my current methods of reviewing are supposed to be a stage in the evolution of how I write. Time will tell whether or not your suggestion of painstakingly pointing out whether or not I'm about to mention a fact or an opinion every single time will actually take hold.

Question yourself before questioning others.
I think you're better off comparing yourself to how you want to be rather than to other people.
These guys get it.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



I'll appreciate the inspirations, sure, but not if they don't cohere into something watchable. Kung Fury sort of has the look down (though its emphasis on crude CG over practical effects does kind of undermine the '80s-ness of it all)
I agree there's a dissonance in the CG. In some ways it feels acceptable, but it clashes with the VHS tracking stuff. In this regard I think ManBorg was a lot better since it actually attempted stop-motion animation. I feel the CG was consistent though and given a serious appreciation for video games, lifelike realism didn't bother me terribly. It's not like the 80s were above upscaling a greenscreened dog either.


Originally Posted by Iroquois
but it's still a pretty contrived and soulless excuse for a genre parody that doesn't bring anything new to the table (but it's still better than Disaster Movie). I'd give it a
nowadays, though.
I wouldn't compare it to the Movie Movie crap, that stuff feels totally different to me.

But as I've mentioned before, movies, especially tributes or parodies, can only be so original. That monkeys-with-a-typewriter analogy exists to emphasize the fact that can we chase each other in circles as much as we want, but we'll eventually tread the same ground, intentionally or not. So given a repeat, it's worth addressing whether the same thing is done better or worse. Many times, the second, third, or hundredth time's the charm.

From what few 80s parodies I've seen, Kung Fury is easily my favorite, particularly because it's more than just a buddy cop parody, a blaxploitation parody, or a James Bond parody.

I will totally agree that the Danger 5 phone gag was done better than Kung Fury (if that's something you're saying), but honestly I didn't find that scene terribly funny to begin with.

One moment I thought wad genuinely funny is during the fight scene near the end when the nazi soldiets rush him and all just knock themselves out simply by colliding with him.

I hadn't seen that in a movie before and it totally caught me off-guard.

Granted, you in all probability have seen many more movies than me, so if it isn't simply a different sense of humor, you may simply be tired of a lot of the same jokes by now.

I know a lot of anime newbies get into new shows and just eat up the biggest fattest cliches in the book, so maybe we're at that point.

*shrugs*. Dunno. I liked it. And I place it well above many of the other comedies you've given
.



Welcome to the human race...
I agree there's a dissonance in the CG. In some ways it feels acceptable, but it clashes with the VHS tracking stuff. In this regard I think ManBorg was a lot better since it actually attempted stop-motion animation. I feel the CG was consistent though and given a serious appreciation for video games, lifelike realism didn't bother me terribly. It's not like the 80s were above upscaling a greenscreened dog either.
It's especially distracting when you take into account how it differs from other deliberately so-bad-it's-good genre parodies that mainly rely on practical effects. The laughably obvious non-CGI effects work are ultimately undermined by actual CGI.

I wouldn't compare it to the Movie Movie crap, that stuff feels totally different to me.
Yeah, Kung Fury is not nearly as lazy or offensive, I'll give it that, but that's still a very low bar to clear.

But as I've mentioned before, movies, especially tributes or parodies, can only be so original. That monkeys-with-a-typewriter analogy exists to emphasize the fact that can we chase each other in circles as much as we want, but we'll eventually tread the same ground, intentionally or not. So given a repeat, it's worth addressing whether the same thing is done better or worse. Many times, the second, third, or hundredth time's the charm.
I understand that. My issue is more that Kung Fury does feel very sloppy in its use of parody even when compared to similar works. You compare it to something like Garth Marenghi's Darkplace or Black Dynamite and it shows how, even considering the short running time, Kung Fury comes up short. It's not so much repetition as it is how there is very little to distinguish it favourably on its own terms.

From what few 80s parodies I've seen, Kung Fury is easily my favorite, particularly because it's more than just a buddy cop parody, a blaxploitation parody, or a James Bond parody.
For the sake of reference, what are the other 80s parodies?

I will totally agree that the Danger 5 phone gag was done better than Kung Fury (if that's something you're saying), but honestly I didn't find that scene terribly funny to begin with.
I'm saying that the only part of Kung Fury that I actually got a laugh out of was a gag that just so happened to have appeared in Danger 5. If anything, I'd say that Kung Fury may have executed it a little better (Hitler giving a pre-emptive "F*CK YOU" being the key difference). Still, that's one ten-second gag in a thirty-minute film, so...*shrug*

Granted, you in all probability have seen many more movies than me, so if it isn't simply a different sense of humor, you may simply be tired of a lot of the same jokes by now.
I'm trying to keep a record of how many films I've seen - it's a little over 2,000. A lot of jokes to get used to.

*shrugs*. Dunno. I liked it. And I place it well above many of the other comedies you've given
.
The fact that I've changed my mind and upped it to
suggests that I have, too. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have watched it three times if I didn't think there was something of worth but it turns out there isn't.



Originally Posted by Iroquois
It's especially distracting when you take into account how it differs from other deliberately so-bad-it's-good genre parodies that mainly rely on practical effects. The laughably obvious non-CGI effects work are ultimately undermined by actual CGI.
Honestly, the CG looked a lot better than I was expected it to be. Kung Fury's effort to nail the overall picture quality, like Black Dynamite did, also prevents the sort of visual clash that ManBorg DID suffer from. That really clean 1080p HD Widescreen resolution doesn't fit the intentionally poor stop-motion monsters.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
I understand that. My issue is more that Kung Fury does feel very sloppy in its use of parody even when compared to similar works. You compare it to something like Garth Marenghi's Darkplace or Black Dynamite and it shows how, even considering the short running time, Kung Fury comes up short. It's not so much repetition as it is how there is very little to distinguish it favourably on its own terms.
I haven't seen Darkplace, though I want to now. However "very little to distinguish it favourably on its own terms" sounds vague. What makes it any less distinguishable from something like Danger 5 than Black Dynamite distinguishes itself from something like I'm Gonna Git You Sucka?

Originally Posted by Iroquois
For the sake of reference, what are the other 80s parodies?
Well, that depends. Are you counting the more specific genre parodies like Austin Powers and Black Dynamite, or just general 80s parodies (like I was referring to)? Cause as far as general 80s parodies are concerned, I'm comparing this to stuff like Turbo Kid and Farcry: Blood Dragon (which isn't a movie or even a TV series, but still).

I haven't seen Last Action Hero yet.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
I'm saying that the only part of Kung Fury that I actually got a laugh out of was a gag that just so happened to have appeared in Danger 5. If anything, I'd say that Kung Fury may have executed it a little better (Hitler giving a pre-emptive "F*CK YOU" being the key difference). Still, that's one ten-second gag in a thirty-minute film, so...*shrug*
See I just saw a phone on a string supposedly shooting up a room and I'm thinkin' "yeah, whatever", but in Danger 5 we just cut to the person on the other side of the line whip out a gun and pop the listener in the neck before hanging up. I thought that was funnier.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
A lot of jokes to get used to.
That could be interpreted either way.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
The fact that I've changed my mind and upped it to suggests that I have, too. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have watched it three times if I didn't think there was something of worth but it turns out there isn't.

Okay, but of course this does make me curious... what comedies really get you?

Anything Monty Python or Schwarzenegger doesn't count.



.... And so, to recap. Garth Marenghi's Darkplace is great and should be watched by everyone at least once. While The Blues Brothers is rubbish and not at all funny, which makes sense as it starts Belushi and Aykroyd.



.... And so, to recap. Garth Marenghi's Darkplace is great and should be watched by everyone at least once. While The Blues Brothers is rubbish and not at all funny, which makes sense as it starts Belushi and Aykroyd.
As opposed to comedic genius of Death Race 2000.



Welcome to the human race...
Honestly, the CG looked a lot better than I was expected it to be. Kung Fury's effort to nail the overall picture quality, like Black Dynamite did, also prevents the sort of visual clash that ManBorg DID suffer from. That really clean 1080p HD Widescreen resolution doesn't fit the intentionally poor stop-motion monsters.
Yeah, it does seem like a film at odds with itself and thus becomes harder to enjoy.

I haven't seen Darkplace, though I want to now. However "very little to distinguish it favourably on its own terms" sounds vague. What makes it any less distinguishable from something like Danger 5 than Black Dynamite distinguishes itself from something like I'm Gonna Git You Sucka?
I haven't seen I'm Gonna Git You Sucka (though I really should). When I say "very little to distinguish it favourably on its own terms", I say that Kung Fury doesn't really do anything notably different in a good way. Kung Fury himself is supposed to be a pastiche of many different movie/videogame anti-heroes, but having loads of influences doesn't equate to him being a good character in his own right, and even the sequence that delves into his back-story is clumsily done even without the "cop with dead partner" cliché. Even if the film is supposed to be a silly action parody, it's hard to care without a good enough character (or collection of characters) to root for. Likewise, it's difficult without a good villain to root against - Hitler comes across as a lazy choice for a villain even if he is turned into a kung-fu caricature (just like Richard Nixon in Black Dynamite, incidentally, which is another strike against Kung Fury).

As for what distinguishes it from Danger 5 - before going into detail, I concede that Danger 5 is a series that can afford to build its characters over the course of several episodes instead of Kung Fury's self-contained half-hour. Danger 5 benefits from building an ensemble cast in the form of the titular five-person unit as they interact with one another - meanwhile, Kung Fury only offers its title character and a disparate handful of characters (Hackerman, Triceracop, the Vikings, even HOFF 9000) with whom his interaction is quite limited and you don't get much of a sense that there's any significant dynamic between anyone (which does hamper the film when all the heroic characters join forces at the end to fight Hitler and his army). Even comedies that are designed to be absurd and random in their humour need to be able to create some genuinely distinctive characters and some strong interplay between them so as to provide a backbone for the craziness to build around. I don't get much of that kind of vibe with the characters in Kung Fury so even some of their more obviously humourous exchanges don't get much of a reaction out of me (even though a gigantic, geriatric Thor responding to a compliment about his musles with a husky "thanks, bro" should be funny). I think that points to a greater problem than simply saying "it's just a bunch of random stuff that people think is cool like lasers and dinosaurs!" Even actual so-bad-it's-good stuff tries to have substance or try to stand out (even if they fail). Kung Fury may be a Kickstarter-funded labour of love, but it does seem like it doesn't grasp exactly what makes cult '80s kitsch great and thus only offers an unsatisfying surface-level grab-bag of tropes.

Regarding Darkplace, don't let honeykid's endorsement fool you - Darkplace is genuinely good. It's pretty short (only six half-hour episodes in total) and you can find them all on YouTube. Here's the first one just to give you an idea:



Well, that depends. Are you counting the more specific genre parodies like Austin Powers and Black Dynamite, or just general 80s parodies (like I was referring to)? Cause as far as general 80s parodies are concerned, I'm comparing this to stuff like Turbo Kid and Farcry: Blood Dragon (which isn't a movie or even a TV series, but still).
More like the general 80s. Also, I liked Turbo Kid far more than this - its '80s pastiche at least felt a bit more consistent than that of Kung Fury because it opted to focus on the post-apocalyptic sub-genre rather than throw way too many ideas at the wall. Not exactly laugh-out-loud, but it has enough style and substance to make up for it.

Okay, but of course this does make me curious... what comedies really get you?

Anything Monty Python or Schwarzenegger doesn't count.
Well, if you insist on those constraints...Airplane!, The Princess Bride, the Evil Dead trilogy, This Is Spinal Tap, Withnail & I, Dr. Strangelove, The Big Lebowski, Heathers, Dazed and Confused, Repo Man, and the "Cornetto" trilogy...for starters.

Iro is a Blue Brother^^



What a wanker!


.... And so, to recap. Garth Marenghi's Darkplace is great and should be watched by everyone at least once. While The Blues Brothers is rubbish and not at all funny, which makes sense as it starts Belushi and Aykroyd.
Hey now, it's not like it's Ghostbusters or anything.

As opposed to comedic genius of Death Race 2000.
Now, now, there are plenty of other comedies he likes that actually deserve your scorn.



Originally Posted by Iroquois
I say that Kung Fury doesn't really do anything notably different in a good way. Kung Fury himself is supposed to be a pastiche of many different movie/videogame anti-heroes, but having loads of influences doesn't equate to him being a good character in his own right, and even the sequence that delves into his back-story is clumsily done even without the "cop with dead partner" cliché.
I'm pretty sure that whole struck by lightning and bitten by a cobra thing was intentional... >.>

Originally Posted by Iroquois
Even if the film is supposed to be a silly action parody, it's hard to care without a good enough character (or collection of characters) to root for. Likewise, it's difficult without a good villain to root against - Hitler comes across as a lazy choice for a villain even if he is turned into a kung-fu caricature (just like Richard Nixon in Black Dynamite, incidentally, which is another strike against Kung Fury).
That's fair.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
As for what distinguishes it from Danger 5 - before going into detail, I concede that Danger 5 is a series that can afford to build its characters over the course of several episodes instead of Kung Fury's self-contained half-hour. Danger 5 benefits from building an ensemble cast in the form of the titular five-person unit as they interact with one another - meanwhile, Kung Fury only offers its title character and a disparate handful of characters (Hackerman, Triceracop, the Vikings, even HOFF 9000) with whom his interaction is quite limited and you don't get much of a sense that there's any significant dynamic between anyone (which does hamper the film when all the heroic characters join forces at the end to fight Hitler and his army). Even comedies that are designed to be absurd and random in their humour need to be able to create some genuinely distinctive characters and some strong interplay between them so as to provide a backbone for the craziness to build around.
If I were to play devil's advocate, I could say that you don't get much of that with Monty Python either. Then again, Monty Python rarely ever tried to build up characters to any sort of arc or climax, they just get a kick out of abrupt endings.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
I don't get much of that kind of vibe with the characters in Kung Fury so even some of their more obviously humourous exchanges don't get much of a reaction out of me (even though a gigantic, geriatric Thor responding to a compliment about his musles with a husky "thanks, bro" should be funny). I think that points to a greater problem than simply saying "it's just a bunch of random stuff that people think is cool like lasers and dinosaurs!" Even actual so-bad-it's-good stuff tries to have substance or try to stand out (even if they fail). Kung Fury may be a Kickstarter-funded labour of love, but it does seem like it doesn't grasp exactly what makes cult '80s kitsch great and thus only offers an unsatisfying surface-level grab-bag of tropes.
I can't deny any of that. But I do love those tropes.

Personally, I'm pleased to see that Kung Fury is getting a feature length remake with the short serving as a proof of concept. I would be more than happy to see a lot more attention give to it with actual characters and arcs. More than that though, I would like them to brush up the jokes a bit. Some of them were needlessly crude and I much prefer non-specific trope humor over direct references to tv shows and movies.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
Regarding Darkplace, don't let honeykid's endorsement fool you - Darkplace is genuinely good. It's pretty short (only six half-hour episodes in total) and you can find them all on YouTube. Here's the first one just to give you an idea:
I will have to watch that later.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
More like the general 80s. Also, I liked Turbo Kid far more than this - its '80s pastiche at least felt a bit more consistent than that of Kung Fury because it opted to focus on the post-apocalyptic sub-genre rather than throw way too many ideas at the wall. Not exactly laugh-out-loud, but it has enough style and substance to make up for it.
See, Turbo Kid really bothered me with it's inconsistency. It felt like it was trying to be this whimsical childhood nostalgia grab before it went all Evil Dead on us.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
Well, if you insist on those constraints... Airplane!,
Been meaning to see that for a LONG time.
The Princess Bride,
Classic. Gotta see that again.

the Evil Dead trilogy,
I've only seen Army of Darkness (which I liked), but it was my impression that the first movie was straight up horror, the sequel was horror so-bad-it's-funny and the the third was just straight up comedy.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
This Is Spinal Tap,
It's been years since I've seen it, but I just recall not seeing what was supposed to be funny about it.

Heard that "none more black" line countless times though.
Originally Posted by Iroquois
Dr. Strangelove, The Big Lebowski
Both certainly had funny moments, but a whole lot of it feels like dead air to me.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
Withnail & I, Heathers, Dazed and Confused, Repo Man,
I haven't seen any of those, let alone know much about them.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
and the "Cornetto" trilogy...for starters.
I'm largely turned off by the idea of a Simon Pegg comedy. After Shaun of the Dead, Run Fatboy Run, and How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, I was pretty much done. It's not that he can't be funny, but from what I've seen he leans heavily on that "it's awkward and uncomfortable so it's funny" sort of stuff.

That said, I've largely heard good things about the Cornetto Trilogy.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
Now, now, there are plenty of other comedies he likes that actually deserve your scorn.
You're right, I overlooked Charlie's Angels.



Which also isn't a comedy. You people know **** all about genre.

This Is Spinal Tap is the greatest comedy of all time, but I do think it's something which gets funnier with every viewing. I'd have never thought it was so good after the first couple of viewings.