I *adore* Excalibur... but I recognize its flaws and spectacle. Uryens knighting Arthur with Excalibur *always* moves me to tears, but the movie is also like a fever dream at certain points.
I admit: rewatching Excalibur before writing this video, that scene and the final Avalon departure scene honestly gave me chills. It's such a messy movie, but there are so many great points.
@@agramuglia I haven't watched Excalibur, but his latest movie resembles the seven samurai anime massively, which was also set in the future. lol you can watch all 26 episodes on RUclips.
@@agramugliawhat about it is “messy” he condensed an entire Arthurian legend from the sword and the stone to grail quest into a single 2 hour wagnerian tone poem. the film is an absolute masterpiece
@@agramuglia There is no mess. Every aspect is perfectly placed to assemble an easily understood puzzle, if the person looking at the puzzle has the compatible knowledge base. If you know nothing about Christianity, a painting of THE LAST SUPPER is just 12 hippies eating dinner.
Man that Rob Zombie/Zack Snyder comparison was so spot on I have to subscribe. Both of those guys are solid visual directors, but are at their best when they collaborate with good script writers.
Miura is one of my favorite G.N. authors, have you read the interview where he talks about shortly after coming up with the idea of Gatsu's mechanical hand he saw "Army of Darkness" and feared being called a hack? You can tell he was cool dude.
John Boorman's script for Lord of The Rings is online and it is complete gibberish. If you read it you find out that Ralph Bakshi was kind when he described the script.
Somewhat off-topic, but at that time, animation really was the only way to tell the story of LotR with the technology of the day. I guess Tolk's dislike of animation came from how Disney made dwarves and fairies, who in the myths are powerful and beautiful and dangerous beings, into silly comic relief, and Tolk wrote the dwarves in his world the way he did to counter so much of Disney, even though the later films made Gimli silly. :/ But Tolkien wouldn't've been happy with any film, live-action or animated. He believed, rightly or wrongly, that fantasy only worked in a written or oral medium, on the page on from the mouth, because it allowed your imagination to work its wonders. If you read or hear about a dragon, you have your own personal dragon in your head, but if you see a dragon, you aren't given that freedom. So any visual adaptation, screen or stage, went against what Tolkien thought was the spirit of fantasy.
@@ZephLodwick I say this as someone who adores the lord of the rings trilogy. I grew up with the extended edition dvd box set, have it in my collection still to this day even as I have the bluray edition and they were a huge inspiration for me artistically but... yeah animation given the proper resources would been such a great fit for a story like lord of the ring. I mean you look at a film like princess mononoke, and you cannot tell me that animation cannot deliver that kind of sweeping epic, somber story, as well as showcasing the beauty of the world around us.
@@LaurianeG. There may be just too much of a perception of animation being for children's cartoons and Disney movies in America, and this perception of it only being associated with cliche kid's products may make it untenable for western filmmakers to pitch actual epic and deep animated projects marketed for non child audiences.
BvS take on Luthor definitely makes more sense if he was going for Nichol Williamson's Merlin, a goofy weirdo who feels like he's from a whole other movie.
Luthor is the least i have a problem with in the movie. Ther are weasly cowardly luthor versions and , eisenberg has helly fun playing him. He was the least bad thing. And seemed thew only one actually having to have fun.
BVS Lex Luther is the best version of the character because he tricked; Batman, Superman and the audience. Like Batman and Superman Lex also has a public alter ego. He plays the stereotypical socially awkward, weak, nerd. Rewatch the scene where Lex meets both Bruce and Clark. He purposely makes himself not look like a threat. There are only 1-2 scenes where he shows his true face. One is where he is in his study talking about his father and Superman.
@@marocat4749i truly wonder what's the 'other' problems or issues you have with the movie... is is the 'Martha' scene or is it Batman offing in general or both... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
@@godzillazfriction like the ris no superman. The movie has no superman people love that would have such an affect, and its the direction, not cavils fault. also yes if batman has no qualms shooting freaking people with mashinegun, thats not batman, but the punisher. And yeah there are fun campy luthers, he is the most accurate in portrayal.
One thing I'll always say in defense of Snyder is that he's the only filmmaker I've ever known who has used a realistic POV of a character looking through binoculars (in that first zombie movie he made). It might actually be the only film in film history that has such a POV shot!
I watched Rebel Moon with my wife. We both cringed at how bad it was, yet we could not stop watching it. Just like a gruesome train wreck. There was enough there that was interesting to keep us watching it. The robot voiced by Anthony Hopkins was my favotire part of the film.
"Excalibur" was AMAZING! As a teenager in the 80s, this film, Ridley Scott's "Legend", "Dragon Slayer", "Ladyhawke", "Krull", "Conan the Barbarian" and, God help me, "The Beastmaster", got me excited for the fantasy genre in films and books. I miss those magical days.
"High-five" to you internet person, all of those for me as well! My sister and I love Beastmaster for the camp it was 😊 Do you know "Hawk the Slayer" as well?
I want a version where the movie the Waynes saw was Antonio Banderas' The Mask of Zorro. Alas, I don't think Pattinson's Bruce is the right age for it to work.
Your bringing up _A Princess of Mars_ made me draw a parallel between Snyder's work, most of which I haven't seen, and Edgar Rice Burroughs's work, the "shallowness". I've read all 11 of _John Carter of Mars_ stories, and I loved them. ERB constructs this world that does feel like a lived-in world even if the worldbuilding doesn't go as deep as Tolkien's work or _Dune._ As I was reading, I realized that I'd built my own story, my own characters, around the bones laid out by Burroughs. There are hints of really complex and interesting, even tragic characters, especially his villains, who I'd say are a consistent weakspot in Burroughs's story. I realize my headcannon had overshadowed the story written on the page. I could talk about Carthoris's relationship with John Carter, or Carthoris's relationship with Gahan of Gathol, or Tars Tarkas's relationship with Dejah Thoris. But how much of that is my version of Burroughs or Burroughs himself?
Here to just briefly be a (currently lone) voice in favor of Snyder and Excalibur in the comments. You say "the themes are strong on paper but not in execution," but those themes do land for many of us. I want to Thank You for being as generous to us Snyderinos as you are. You never trash-talked us, or him. I appreciate that a lot.
I don't believe it's right to ever criticize someone for enjoying media. I will criticize a film, but that criticism never extends to the character of its creator or its audience... unless the content is particularly depraved or illicit, or the director themselves is just an awful person, like Victor Salva or Roman Polanski. And even then, those criticisms would be very centered on the individual bas actors, not sweeping statements.
Absolutely. One of the best things about 80s fantasy in general, was that those movies get weird as fuck. You truly never knew what insanity was waiting in the next scene.
Zac Snyder is like so many Directors who think that because they know how to direct a fictional story, this means they know how to write and tell a fictional story. Abrams, Snyder, Lucas .. ideas guys who direct ( though Lucas did not like it ) but also lack any ability to write a script. Rebel moon part 1 is a rich mans clone of Seven Samurai and Army of the Dead is just Aliens but Zombies with extra steps.
52:14 I do agree we need more bold directors, but I dont think Snyder is it for this comparison, because even a bold director should be able to dive into critiscism and see if there is something in their body of work that they did wrong. Yet here is Zacky, complaining almost a decade later that people didnt like his Batman killing, but never actually reflecting on why the audience.
Why I partially feel that Zack needs to improve on his work-life balance at best and find other works that he can fall in love with and be inspired, rather than just one life-changing movie. The spark IS there, and there's a talented director in there. The problem is that he needs to learn when to just call it a day if things aren't exactly working out for him.
If said "audience" has almost 0 to nothing knowledge of source material (the actual one, ie all 77 years of it and all its history and the Why for no kill/no gun and how different writers handled it, etc) in the first place what is there to talk and to whom? At best you will have video games with ludo-narrative dissonance (ie Batman and Red Hood will punch one guy same way, Bat's detective vision will say he is just sleeping, Red Hood will register 0 pulse) and also will pretend that superheroes/Batman in Non-Snyder movies never kill just because they said so , even if realistically (ie point from which people even accuse Snyder's DC characters of killing) people they "non lethally" punch or worse can be very well dead.
@@FirstnameLastname-my7bz I think you are underestimating just how popular a character Batman is. Like, even people who only engage with him in one medium (games, movies, animation, comics, etc...) will know at least the basics of the character, and the no-kill rule is a pretty basic thing for him. "Oh but in the other movies it looks like he did killed or should have", thats never a point of discussion in the story itself, you can just assume he didnt do it there even when it looks like it should have happened. That suspencion of disbelief is far from the most absurd thing a regular movie has asked of its audience, never mind a super hero movie. But even then, even if you are completely in the dark with anything Batman related, because of the way the character is presented throughout the entire movie, it doesnt look like Superman befriended a fellow superhero, it looks like he befriended a psychotic serial killer. And I am pretty sure that wasnt intentional from the narrative.
@@GabrielLopes-jj8rx no it's just lazy mental gymnastics, you really don't know Batman at all. In fact many of you clinging to no kill Absolutism which was NEVER part of character (not to mention in comics All superheroes don't kill, Avengers too), neither was Ras Al Ghul training Batman or whatever you think is "basic thing" about him. And frankly Zack was born in 60s and grew up in 70s and 90s. You don't even know that Batman got his automatic grappling gun only after Tim Burton films (in which he also killed Because writers researched original comics) and before that Batman always used just manual rope. You can assume he never killed anyone in BvS just like you easily assume he never did in your favorite video games, cartoons or movies made by non-Snyder
@@FirstnameLastname-my7bz Dont see the need for this passive aggressiveness, since it gives me a negative light of you, but regardless, yes, Batman has killed...back in the 40's, which is something both Kane and Finger disliked doing. Ever since, the no-kill rule has been an integral part of the character, what you are trying to argue is like saying that Spider-Man being someone that always has money problems is something recent, no, its part of the character, none of those have anything to do with random wikipedia facts you listed nor Snyder's age. And no, you cant assume Batman didnt kill someone, not when the director later goes on interview to brag about it, he does verything in his power to take away that room for suspension of disbelief
Excailber was filmed not too far from where I lived. And it's weird to think of a Lord of the RIngs were locations were scouted in Ireland rather than New Zealand. Still its funny for King Artur to be filmed in WIcklow, like of all the places for the legadary KIng of England to pull the sword from the stone, its Ireland's Wicklow. AIn't the place I'd pick.
@@agramugliato be fair Arthur wasn't Saxon or Norse. The original legends were Celtic and Excalibur runs with it with the charm of making being in badly pronounced old Irish and Merlin being essentially a druid. Depending on the version he even defended Britain from the Saxons.
Patrick H Willems did a video where he evaluates the way Robert Zemeckis got obsessed with the toys of digital animation and cg effects. This felt comparable in how the more creative control they had, the less coherent the story
I was absolutely convinced that Monty Python and the Holy Grail was a merciless parody of Excalibur. Every scene seems to rip into that stupid film. Then I found out Excalibur actually came out a few years later.
This is, hands down, the very best review of Zack as a filmmaker, his hit or miss works, objective but also nuanced, arguments backed by research, with statements backed by intelligent and well written dialogue. You sir have a new subscriber and fan.
I think that with Excalibur Boorman knew what he was doing to a much greater extent Snyder does. Snyder is a bit like JJ Abrams trying to ape old franchises he likes without getting why they worked in the first place. Watchmen is pretty much a product of that, he apes the GN but doesn't understand why certain thing are the way they are in it.
Yep, snyder has a niche audience due his weird dark unemorional where excalibur, in the worst case looks shlocky fun, which is fun. Oh that he was high on the movie explains a lot vibes, but reagardless fun. Snyder should learn the definition of fun. even in a dark miserable drama you need some fun. Hell suckerpunch is , its not good but probably his most respectable due being interesting. Ok he wouldnt be nearly as director if he did , ok a messy interesting auteur movie is alway way way better than one ruining adaptions by being clearly the wrong fit.
For what it's trying to do: cram all the major beats of the Arthur mythos into 2 hours and 20 minutes, Exclibur succeeds probably as much as is possible. However, trying to do *that* was always going to be a major problem. I wish we could see what Boorman had to cut for the runtime. I know there was supposed to be more of Gawain and Morgana, and Lancelot rescuing Guinivere.
Ive often wondered if the visuals come to Zack before the story. Like he builds his stories around key visual moments as opposed to crafting sequences that fit the stories
I can't begin to explain how deeply the mythology affects me, but I have been in love with Arthurian legend for as long as I can remember. Excalibur was my first exposure to the subject, and I will love that movie until the day I die in spite of any technical flaws it might possess. It's one of a handful of films that were truly formative to my young imagination, and it represents many of my oldest and most heartfelt ideals.
Dude, they saw Zorro. the Marquee is in the clip you provided. Excaliber is advertised as coming out later. Incidentally, in the Joker, Exclaibur and Zorro the Gay Blade are playing at the theatre where the Wayne's get shot.
While Flesh+Blood is not a fantasy/folklore/mythology film, its strong medieval/early renaissance aesthetics, its dark atmosphere and its christian mysticism can earn it an honorary mention.
Zack Snyder is all flash no substance, he can make something look good (debatably) but doesn't understand how characters and their world interact with each other, often creating rules and motivations and either forgetting them or ignoring them for Slooooomoooo scenes.
And what grinds my gears about the guy the most is the fact that he shows no desire to self-reflect and improve. No matter how many of his movies underperform, are critically trashed and get memetically mocked, it's always the audience's fault for not understanding him.
But many people, including me, simply like fantasy movies that does not focus much on characters. The issue with character focused action movies is that they often feel the same in a way, as the character development are to often based on a few simple Hollywood tropes that are repeated again and again.
@@steinarvilnes3954 Even action focused stories need some reason for you to care about the characters and every action set peace should advance the plot in some manner. If you don't care about what happens to the characters going through the action and/or the action has no consequences, the action gets boring. If you only want to see the action/spectacle scenes without any story context, you can find them as separated clip from youtube. Watching 2-3 hours long experience for 10-20 minutes doesn't sound worth it to me.
@@SpedeVesku To some degree, some story and character is needed, but to a lesser degree, and for me the characters of Snyder movies is simply sufficient. Also, it depends on your view of humanity. In my view, most humans are really "cardboard cutouts". Walking predictable stereotypes with nothning or little to really add to the world. I simply feel that Hollywood cater to the cultural beliefs of many Americans that the individual have more will and power to improve themselves and develop than they actually have. Also, many non Hollywood movies have more action than 10-20 minutes per 2-3 hours, such as many HK and Southeast asian movies. In those kind of movies, the audience mostly love the actor and his/her work and care for the character because it is that particual actor, be it Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Iko Uwais or whatever.
@@steinarvilnes3954Traditionally even the most jumping the shark shut your brain off and enjoy the ride project still have character and in-universe logic to ground them, this is because for emotional moments to hit the audience needs to be engaged.....Zack Snyder is the antithesis of this he creates the rules and the scenarios but will completely ignore them while still trying to have emotion or depth examples include Man of Steel "Maybe" scene, Army of the Dead "Robot Zombies" "how long does it take to turn" and "I'm looking for my friend" scenes, and BvS infamous "Martha" scene. If Snyder was fun time who cares Director this could be potentially acceptable but he wants these scenes to be taken seriously as they ooze with melodrama.
I’m a dyed in the wool Zackolyte. The critique here is entirely legit. What I love most about this is the acceptance that “I don’t like this guy’s stuff but lots of people do and there’s a reason” was something I heard - if you forgive the Excalibur quote - with gladness. Great gladness. All of the commentary on Snyder’s lack of attention to character is on point. I think he’s less interested in character and more about archetypes which many people intrinsically jam with . Hence his fan base. This was a great video, subbed half way through… look forward to more.
I'd be fine with Snyder's focus on archetypes if he could actually competently execute on those archetypes...but he seems incapable of that because I don't think he understands them. He doesn't seem to understand how things like actions and words convey characters outside of the most superficial, surface-level ways and, as a result, he contradicts his own archetypes constantly.
I’ve watched a lot of Snyder’s work (from the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead to Rebel Moon) and from what I’ve noticed in a lot of his work is the idea of deconstruction. Be it the Han Solo-esc Character of Kai in Rebel Moon being a traitor, or the Superman vs Zod fight being and the destruction caused by it being the main catalyst for Batman in BVS, to even the fast zombies in Dawn of the Dead (2004). There’s nothing wrong with deconstructing genre norms or tropes, if you have a point or something to make that involves deconstructing said topic then there’s nothing wrong with that. The issue is with Zack’s deconstructing is that there really doesn’t seem to be much of a focus on those deconstructions. In Batman Vs. Superman and Man of Steel, they deconstruct the idea of “the no-kill rule.” however they really don’t dwell on this in either movie so it doesn’t really get the message across.
I think a big issue he has is intention and ramification. He knows the chips need to fall in a certain way, but he doesn't understand why it's important they land that way.
I know a couple of people online who would disagree with your points about needing more directors like Snyder and movies like his because of their driving beliefs that character-building is more important for storytelling than visual spectacle and have a growing hate for blockbusters like the MCU because of it. It's basically a desire for more arthouse movies with less mainstream and more niche appeal, even though I am against niche appeal because that's how gatekeeping is created if something niche becomes mainstream when it becomes more easily accessible to everyone.
I disagree with the literal statement "We need more directors like Zack Snyder." We absolutely do not need more shallow, repetitive directors who have no concept of character or storytelling beyond putting a cool picture on the screen. We DO need more directors who are passionate about showing us something beautiful or epic or magical or truly a cinematic version of a painting, but realize that that is only a piece of the puzzle. All the things that Zack fails at are also necessary elements of good filmmaking. And a director who can do those things is, by definition, not a director like Zack Snyder. So I do agree that we need more directors who have the passion for the visual artistry that Zack has, but they also need to be more than that, and possess the passion for story, character, theme, humanity, and narrative flow. Zack does one thing very well, but a director has to do a hundred things well. He is not any kind of template, he's just an example of how to do one part of the job with drive and passion.
Excalibur ISN'T a mess. It does a very elegant job of condensing an extremely lengthy and complex saga into a single movie. People who regard it as a mess just aren't acquainted with the literary sources for the Arthurian story, and their lack of patience as viewers isn't really Boorman's fault.
Well they didn't hand out the necessary literature at the theater and there wasn't anyone to do a Q&A beforehand. OP, are you a Snyder fan? Because this is the sort of defense I see from his cult all the time
Wow, never knew Snyder was a huge Excalibur fan but it does make complete sense. I feel like the problem with Snyder is that he just sort of aped Excalibur, just like he aped Star Wars for "Rebel Moon". I agree that Excalibur required some major "suspension of critical plot analysis" at points, but I think one of the reasons that movie made such an impact is that it's an epic in every sense, and it's no coincidence that it uses a lot of the music from "The Ring" operas by Wagner. It's about mythic figures who aren't really supposed to be human or relatable, yet who are flawed, and make human mistakes. And Boorman masterfully brought the whole "history doesn't often repeat, but it usually rhymes" proverb to life with Arthur's entire arc - someone who was born through sin (i.e. the r*pe of his mother, via trickery), and eventually is brought down by the fruits of his sin (i.e. his incest, albeit being tricked himself.) There were also lots of metaphors in there, like Excalibur representing Arthur's integrity and honor, and when he abandons it just to defeat Lancelot - it shatters, and that impure act leads to his downfall. SO much good stuff in Excalibur, but when you look at Zack Snyder's work, it's like he can only comprehend the visual language, and can only mimic the moral/emotional/symbolic themes Boorman was able to put into Excalibur (some more effectively than others, for sure.) I agree Snyder is a great cinematographer, but I think we need more directors who can connect with themes and humanity.
I enjoy 300 exactly for the reason you pointed to, its ability to be read as a story of people passing down false descriptions of the past. I think the movie is unintentionally capable of being read this way, as it doesn't acknowledge any actual truth at all about the Spartans, but because of how outrageous it is and it all being told to the soldiers in the future like its story time, it lends itself to satire.
There's no way to know if Mallory was guilty of anything he was locked up for. Knights in his day could and would be imprisoned on trumped up charges for being on the wrong side of a conflict.
Mallory sounds normal for the day and judgement by modern people that have cops and functional justice system is laughingly stupid, cattle raiding and women taking was life in these islands 1400s and rape was not judge in the same way back then ie having sex with a woman without marriage afterwards
I agree with everything said here, but I must admit the moment Arthur sees Guinevere toward the end of the film and talks about hoping they’ll meet in the afterlife as husband and wife rather than king and queen? Chokes me up
28:10 that's very nice but to me Snyder seems like a detached superficial moral objectivist without any idea what motivates heroic loving stewardship 43:57 he doesn't care he's just a BIG KID PLAYING WITH TOYS and hundreds of millions of dollars
When talking to students about Snyder, I say he is all flash, no substance. They will defend him, and I ask them to tell me what his films say with the angles. I generally will get stammers and stutters, but there is no answer. He can make a shot look great, but it mostly means nothing.
The comparison to Excalibur really nails a lot of Zack's issues. I always got the sense that many of Zack's more peculiar choices stem from "Hey wouldn't it be cool if we see..." even if it's confusing or detracts from the story, particularly strange dream sequences or glorification of heinousness. Big wooden cast standing around while two people talk at each other. Every shot framed like an overly posed photo shoot. Any moment there could be a slow-motion music video. Definitely spectacle over substance. Calling his work "Engaging" is too strong for me, since he often makes it impossible to connect with characters; it's more like we're slowing down when passing a wreck. I need a word for "dismayed fascination."
I've watch a lot of video essays on Zack Snyder, and this is easily my favorite. It's so refreshing to see someone critical of Snyder while still being good-faith.
43:32 You said it perfectly. HIs biggest problem is that he doesn't think through the story he's telling. Snyder is a good director. He's a bad storyteller. Sucker Punch is beautiful. But it's an awful story. (It's not underrated, it's that bad.) His stories have an illusion of depth, but when you actually explore it, it's very superficial, when it isn't downright incoherent. And when he's adapting someone else's work, he has such a twisted view of the original work. He completely missed the point of The Dark Knight Returns, and focused on "wouldn't it be cool to have these two characters fight". Watchmen told almost the opposite story from the comics. His love of Ayn Rand is a perfect example. He completely ignores the actual message of the books, and all he got was "architecture is cool". Also, he has way too many films where he puts in SA. Like except for the kid's owl movie, and the DCEU, he has it in every movie. Not misogynist, but uncomfortable.
Great video! You've sold me on not hating Zack Snyder anymore. 49:44 - I do have to disagree in the small way that I thought parts of Rebel Moon were boring. It feels like 40% of the film is slow motion.
It IS a mistake to call Zack Snyder a misogynist... "Sucker Punch" is a LOT of things, but misogynistic isn't one of them. It's also a mistake to call Snyder a hack... hacks don't lay themselves on the altar to be lashed at. That's what MAKES them hacks. A hack wouldn't take bold creative swings like Zack Snyder does... even if the end-result, like the "Snyderverse" DCEU, is ultimately a swing-and-a-miss. He ain't battin' a thousand, but at least he swings for the fences.
yeah never understood labeling sucker punch misogynist too, it's just plain obvious ain't it. If you think about it it is such a bitter sweet power fantasy for everyone involved -- the characters on the screen, the viewers. The gaming narrative showing us exploitation stuff we all saw in the games and other media.
@@andreyzhuchkov1882 Yeah, the anime-cheesecake visuals are meant to be a feast for the eyes, and the "visual metaphor within a dream within a delusion" story-conceit is something no one who's seen it will soon forget. "Remember, ladies... if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything!"
@@RM_VFX Nobody called this film "empowering," whatever the F that means in this context. Its take on feminism is... "confused" would surely be an apt descriptor. But at least it's sincere.
Women in Sucker Punch are LITERALLY sex slaves kept in a dungeon, their only means of escape being death, lobotomy or escapism - which turns them into pinup models. THE MOVIE IS MISOGYNISTIC AS FUCK. Snyder, probably, isn't. He's a 10-year-old boy who somehow managed to make it to 45 (in 2011) without learning anything about social relations or dynamics of oppression. What he did there is a very basic fairy tale story - you know, for kids. The problem is he tried making it into a story for grown ups, by making it about serious and complex issues such as mental health and abuse, with grown up characters... but without ANY understanding of the elements he was handling. He's a 10-year-old boy, making up a story about a pretty lady slaying dragons - but he wants to do it "seriously", so everything happens in the mind of a sexually abused teenager held inside an insane asylum, facing lobotomy. That's a hack job. Passionate and bold - but still a job done by a hack. One can be a hack not just out of lack of interest for the quality of the finished work - a lack of talent will suffice. And while Snyder has SOME talent in visual department (though he manages to prove himself a hack there too - convincing himself that scratched up lenses are good for his production and mastering movies with dead pixels) - he has shown again and again that he has zero talent for any kind of intellectual analysis or understanding of the story he's writing or adapting. E.g. Had he thrown out the sexual framing and made the main characters kids in an orphanage, who then transform into power fantasy Valkyries in the escapism segments - that would have worked far better, it would mean something AND it would make sense as a child's fantasy. Think The Devil's Backbone meets Pan's Labyrinth.
34:51 lol i hated the fact that clark let his dad die when he could have used his super speed to save him and the people from the tornado with out any one seeing him since you know, faster than a speeding bullet.
Zardoz may have failed at the box office, but I still think we have to concede it's easily one of the unusual movies of the seventies - and that's saying a lot. It's certainly one of Boorman's most unusual films, and I'd be more inclined to revisit Zardoz than Excalibur. Nobody would ever get away with making something like Zardoz now - couldn't happen. And that's what makes it so special. There's just no other film like it and it's no surprise it gained a significant cult following.
I'll always love Snyder and Zombie, like you said they're incredibly similar. It's like they absolutely don't give a shit about pleasing anyone except themselves. They don't care about norms, numbers, executives, it's JUST what they want to do, like kids with toys and a burning passion for the crazy ass movies they want to make. That makes them flawed but SO oddly genuine, passionate and fun - no brains all brawn perhaps, but these days, when things are increasingly corporate, when everything that isn't an indie is just a plastic product in a sea of similar product, that feels like water in the desert. I HOPE Snyder would find a writer that holds him tied to good character moments, subtext, meaning. That anchors him so he doesn't just go off and do ALL style (Rebel Moon, at least these first cuts, are 95% style), but no matter what I'll always like that he goes against the grain in pretty much every way. So many directors today crank out soulless movies, but Zack's are all soul, all fire and passion and fun - he just needs a writer to elevate his flaws, to keep his boyish tendencies in check a bit so when the action hits it feels earned.
Big Snyder and Excalibur fan but i think you totally hit the mark here. Honestly, I get really confused about how gross some Snyder fans can get, both bc (as you said) he himself seems super chill (and I love all his random homoeroticism) but also bc his strengths are his weaknesses depending on your taste-it makes so much sense to me that the stuff I love about him might be a barrier to entry for some. His fans often treat him as a sacred cultural cow which i think Snyder, more than anyone, would find ridiculous
Well the media over hates Snyder for no reason. His movies are treated extra special because they are heavily nick picked criticized compared to other movies. Plus you have people on social media who are influenced by these negative outlets that just ride and believe what they say without themselves analyzing the movie for themselves. A lot of the Snyder fans defend against this negativity and unjust. A lot of the criticism is just plain stupid and makes no sense.
49:25 "But, you are--from start to finish--watching that movie... It is at no point boring." I beg to differ. I gave Rebel Moon a shot, but I didn't watch the whole thing. After opening with a phallus going through a space vagina followed by slow motion wheat harvesting, I had decided I had enough. I didn't even make it 5 minutes, and I don't think I missed anything.
That Roger Ebert critique is baffling to me. I saw this when I was very young and loved it and also comprehended it. No clue why Ebert seemed to be so befuddled by it. Maybe I just need to watch 3 or 4 Breadtubers explain all the nuances I have missed the past 40+ years?
ooh, I know. ebert was a big f@t ball of gas. in a time where no one but he, Siskel, and a handful of others did this, they were revered, undeservedly, as ''experts''. imagine only getting 4 people's opinions on ANYTHING. I'm 64. it was the way it was then. but very one-sided.
I'm one of I think a fairly small number of people who read Watchmen as a graphic novel first, loved it, and still enjoyed Snyder's adaptation. And the reason I praise it is because while he definitely lacquered everything with high-gloss to the detriment of Moore's nuance, it's one of a very small number of movies that truly feels like watching a comic book in a good way. I did not enjoy most of Snyder's DC movies but at their heights they (and Sucker Punch, which I have a lot of mixed feelings on) captured the same feel. I would love to see him get to do more comic book movies, and to adapt them by cutting most non-essential dialogue so that the actors' expressions and the viewer's emotions can create context for each story. And if Zach Snyder is ever let near DC again, give him retconned or elseworlds stories that were controversial, and let him go nuts. For all the reasons I did not enjoy most of his DC movies, he's one of the only people I could see making a truly watchable adaptation of the GL Parallax storyline.
The part where you say that Snyder would be a good cinematographer has already been proven not true because he was the cinematographer for Army of the Dead and his cinematography was not good. I think that you are being too nice to Snyder as a filmmaker. I like some of his films but he's always the biggest problem with his films. He's bad at story and character and you can be bad at one of those but you can't be bad at both. Snyder was an interesting messy filmmaker 10 years ago but stagnation has set in. We need interesting filmmakers, even filmmakers that I personally don't vibe with but we don't need him. He adds nothing besides some cool visuals from 10-15 years ago. I wish him well in his personal life of course but I can't wait until he's in the Renny Harlin stage of his career. A once buzzy director that was always more concerned with visuals now directing low budget trash that nobody even talks about.
I personally dislike Tolkein's stance on animation. Western animation at the time, yeah it'd most likely wind up being a crappy kids movie but the optics of animation in the west has always been "animation is for dumb babies". If anything I respect the fact that Bakshi was approached since he was more or less an auteur in adult oriented animation. It's too bad the project didn't shape up well. I think an animated Lord Of The Rings could work. Look at Arcane
Wow, finally a good take on Zack Snyder. It acknowledges his pros and cons, and comes into a believable and plausible conclusions. I don't think he's really been "offensive", just in bad taste with his certain stereotypes or depictions. But there are also a lot of people who funnily enough relate to those stereotypes because... Well they are stereotypes for a reason. People just have fun and don't always want to think too hard about these things and how dangerous they are to our society blah blah blah blah
I always loved Excalibur - too a degree that I couldn't see it's flaws for the longest time. I first saw it as a kid and was thrilled and I bet this first impression helped my opinion of the movie. I couldn't have picked up on complex character dynamics, nuances, and plots back than - but I for sure new this looked great, was epic, and every ten minutes or so something else was going on to keep my attention. When I got older I rationalized it's shortcoming: "Well the movie clearly mirrors the writing style of medievil hero tails, where they tell the deads of the knight without a clear plot progression or character studies - so that's actually very smart and epic...." - I don't believe that now, but there is no way that I won't enjoy Excalibur while watching it.
Much like Excalibur, Snyder films are much more impressive when you're 13 than they are later in life. I would also hesitate to call his tiresome sepia color grade a visual feast today.
The whole point of Excalibur imo is that the characters are locked into the roles they are being required to play to the extent that they can't be the people they would like to be. It's much more like a Greek tragedy than some sort of psychological drama. The suffering that takes place is largely because Arthur forgets/neglects the role he is supposed to serve. No one character exemplifies "humanity" and they largely emblematic of different things like responsibility, shame, hope, etc. Probably the most compelling person is Perceval, who suffers greatly and fails but never gives up on his idealistic belief in the good.
Fun you compare Zach's films to Excalibur because that's one of my favorite films of all time. Only seen the first few minutes of this video because I don't like watching videos about Zach Snyder but I love your work. Binged some of your videos the other day and just finished the Harry Potter video before starting this one. That video was amazing.
The only Arthurian films I can think of with the full sword-in-the-stone to death cycle are Knights of the Round Table (1953) and the miniseries The Mists of Avalon (2001). 300 seems especially timely now, namely the element of the bribed senator, given how many US politicians are in Putin's pocket. I love both Man of Steel and My Adventures With Superman, even though I suspect that the latter was inspired in part as a correction of the former.
I read the script for Excalibur first and still think it's one of the best scripts I have ever read. Then I saw the movie and was dissapointed by the final result.
When you think about it, Uther showed humanity towards Arthur when Arthur was born in Excalibur because it was all lust in the beginning. Lancelot showed humanity for Arthur when he tried to tell Guinevere to stay away from him. And Arthur could have killed Lancelot but he didn't. Arthur showed humanity towards his son but his son rejected him. When the whole knighting scene is shown, it shows humanity. There are other scenes as well when you go back and watch the film. I totally get your point about the Holy Grail scenes.
i'm one who "can't stand" Snyder's films. But i like Excalibur. I don't like the way he films people, and his visual style gives me a headache. my favorite visual directors are Lynch and Almodóvar, so it should come as no surprise that Snyder's style is a giant turn off for viewers like me. Nothing against the man, i know nothing about him and harbor nothing personal. Just don't like his movies. I also think Excalibur is very British movie, communicating the British discomfort with emotion. Boorman seems to substitute myth for simple human emotion. If you want to see emotion, watch how Almodóvar shoots women or how Hitchcock shoots his male protagonists: the human drama is clear. British culture substitutes wit for human emotion.
Zack Snyder's a director that I really respect as a person (based off of what people that worked with him say) and as a visual director, but his ideas are just really bad imo
I enjoyed your video, but we would not agree on some points. Not that that is a problem. But I will try to convince you of a nuanced point of Excalibur that has always stood out to me. I keep a very short mental list of moments in movies where good things happen to good people who are third tier characters at best. For reference, a prime example of this is the mother in Miracle on 34th St who has adopted a Dutch speaking child and the utter joy on her face when Santa speaks to the girl in Dutch. Excalibur’s portrayal of Kay makes him a good, humble supportive brother, but doesn’t overplay it. But, at the end of it all, Merlin makes sure to come visit him also as he did Arthur. That type of subtle acknowledgement of how Kay did not walk the route of Jealousy and deserved his moment amongst all others IS subtle, IS human and IS everything that you claim that this movie lacks. Think it over. It is ok to change your mind.
I understand your argument, but i just don't find that humanizing enough there. It feels a little too detached, imo, though on paper sounds human. If that makes sense. I would have liked to have seen more overt humanity.
35:32, Your point about Batman not doing anything against Doomsday is kind of invalid like although we see him try to evade Doomsday, we see him shoot Kryptonite gas bombs to weaken Doomsday as wonder woman is tying him her lasso. And in 36:14 you are aware that was a dream sequence Batman had of the knightmare timeline so them not reacting to anything is kind of irrelevant.
The Knightmare isn't merely a dream. It's a vision of the future. As for the Kryptonite with Doomsday, he stands on the sidelines until he does one thing. That's still the point.
@@agramuglia Yeah the knightmare is a vision but still a dream where superman gets to them and Bruce literally wakes up from it and about the doomsday thing i mean he can't go against a indestructible kryptonian like zombie, all he can do is try and help weaken it which he did,
@@kafukwamekemeh So you agree that the climax of the entire film is set-up in such a way that it functionally sidelines/invalidates one of the co-protagonists/namesakes of the film? Yeah that's bad storytelling. A much better villain for Batman & Supes is someone like Brainiac whom can threaten Superman with his advanced tech but that same reliance on technology means he is vulnerable to Batman's intellect as much as Superman's powers. Doomsday was a terrible choice (amongst dozens of other terrible choices Snyder made in the DCEU)
@@yagamifire7861 yeah, twelve level intellect alien/robot/cyborg is "obviously" very vulnerable to a guy with kung fu and realistic Earth (is 3-4 level intellect at best) whom even Superman can't always outsmart. It's "terrible" decision to adequately showing power scale. Amazing.
@@agramuglia it's not a point, Batman stands on sidelines because he would be immediately killed. It's called respecting characters and the audience and showing adequate scale. You have absolutely profoundly ridiculous takes from calling Excalibur messy to this and all other "points".
I’ve long since figured that Zack Snyder’s problem was him not being able to Craft Films on his own. And After watching this video, I’m glad to see more people are able to see this truth! Zack Synder has ALWAYs envisioned this EPIC Scope, but I always felt his brain was stuck in his Edgy Teenager phase when I looked back at his Earlier Movies, mainly Dawn of the Dead and Sucker Punch. There was a Deleted scene that gave me the wrong vibes, it was at the beginning of the film after the Main Character (the Lady) jumps into her car, only to stop in front of a torn up highway! A Random naked, Blood covered woman in Shock randomly walks by as the window as the Main Character looks at the attack of another girl by two zombies! That part that now felt more like Rape Scene than a Zombie attack. And more than likely it was either James Gunn or someone else who pointed that scene out and decided to remove it. And I am Glad for that! But it goes to show that these sorts of Contexts for scenes tend to get mixed into a lot of his films for easy (or Lazy) emotional moments.
Fuckin' hell, JAWS is my favorite movie of all time but not every idea I have looks or feels like the stuff in it. In fact, most of them don't because the narrative isn't tonally or thematically similar. The fact that a single film controls every aspect of his entire aesthetic is troubling. And EXCALIBUR of all movies! In fairness though, if he adapted THE FOUNTAINHEAD, I would totally see it. I think Ayn Rand is worse than Hitler, but I would definitely pay to see what he would do with it.
I know you're being hyperbolic (or hope so, at least) but why compare Ayn Rand and Hitler? Once was a demagogue who caused the deaths of millions, and the other was a somewhat libertarian writer that hated communism and every other form of collectivism.
@@freman007 Hitler convinced 79M people they were superior to the entire planet and had the right to conquer it for an entitlement of pride. Roughly 21M people died when it was over and if you include Soviet casualties during Stalin's mobilization purges, that number can be about 70M. Rand convinced about 4x that many people that the social contract was a slave collar and to abandon it completely. The biosphere is collapsing due to the ambitions of the sociopathic financial cult she created. If successful, 8.1B humans and all other life on Earth will perish. Rand is worse.
Excalibur is not “messy” movie it is a masterpiece of riveting cinema. From the opening notes to the ending. Best adaptation of Arthurian Legend on the big screen.
One Reviewer I know Who Reviewed Fantasy Films called “Here there be Dragons”. He Basically states that “Excalibur is about Grandeur and Awe! But doesn’t Tell anything New, nor does it go out of its way to Explore the Myths Characters! It’s a Retelling of the Old Stories, but it’s all about the Pretty lights.”
@@danielramsey6141 bad take. Excalibur is a classic retelling of arthurian legends and it does do many things new the way it weaves it into a wagnerian opera fantasy is something that had not been done before on screen before or since
@@danielramsey6141 That’s just willful ignorance. Arthur interprets himself in a way that is entirely new when he says, “I was not born to live a man’s life but to be the stuff of future memory.” That is an acknowledgement by Boorman that EXCALIBUR is not a film meant to depict people realistically but allegorically. Their speech and actions exist for symbolic purpose. The ideas represented by these symbols have far greater value than any individual. That is also the meaning of the Grail in EXCALIBUR which differs from Mallory and Arthurian tradition by conflating Arthur with the Fisher King. Boorman and Pallenberg are the first two guys who actually give voice to the Grail’s sacred questions AND allow Percival to give the answers, as well.
I would love you and anyone else to take a look at the script that John Boorman wrote for a lord of the rings adaptation. He and Rospo Pallenberg wrote quite honestly the most uniquely weird story that I've ever read.
I think snyder wants to write sagas and epics. Grand stories with grand themes. He has big ideas and has talent for it. But his pitfalls are when he misses the the trees for the forest. A lot of the time he neglects characters for the grander story. Nobody will care about the lord of the rings if they don’t care about Frodo. Or Sam. Or Aragorn. Or any of those characters.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
“The darkest of crimes for a medieval man, robbing churches” - Mallory was a black metal musician before his time.
Mayhem probably would have a few words with him on that one
Oh yeah, Patrick Stewart was in Excalibur. Fun fact: he was also in a couple of episodes of Star Trek.
A couple, huh?
Star Trek? Sure, Mark.
Yeah, but we don't mention that Picard series.
@@colinr0380 YOU JUST DID, COLLIN ಠnಠ
@@MarkArandjus Don't worry, he wasn't in it that much.
I *adore* Excalibur... but I recognize its flaws and spectacle. Uryens knighting Arthur with Excalibur *always* moves me to tears, but the movie is also like a fever dream at certain points.
I admit: rewatching Excalibur before writing this video, that scene and the final Avalon departure scene honestly gave me chills. It's such a messy movie, but there are so many great points.
@@agramuglia I haven't watched Excalibur, but his latest movie resembles the seven samurai anime massively, which was also set in the future. lol you can watch all 26 episodes on RUclips.
@@agramugliawhat about it is “messy” he condensed an entire Arthurian legend from the sword and the stone to grail quest into a single 2 hour wagnerian tone poem. the film is an absolute masterpiece
@@agramuglia There is no mess. Every aspect is perfectly placed to assemble an easily understood puzzle, if the person looking at the puzzle has the compatible knowledge base. If you know nothing about Christianity, a painting of THE LAST SUPPER is just 12 hippies eating dinner.
@@eskanda3434well done and spot on
Man that Rob Zombie/Zack Snyder comparison was so spot on I have to subscribe. Both of those guys are solid visual directors, but are at their best when they collaborate with good script writers.
Another big fan of Excalibur was the late great Kentaro Miura who said he was inspired by a lot of the movie's visuals and tone when making Berserk.
that I can see
Damn! The more you know... 😮
Miura is one of my favorite G.N. authors, have you read the interview where he talks about shortly after coming up with the idea of Gatsu's mechanical hand he saw "Army of Darkness" and feared being called a hack? You can tell he was cool dude.
He was also inspired by Verhoeven's Flesh+Blood with Rutger Hauer iirc
John Boorman's script for Lord of The Rings is online and it is complete gibberish. If you read it you find out that Ralph Bakshi was kind when he described the script.
Somewhat off-topic, but at that time, animation really was the only way to tell the story of LotR with the technology of the day. I guess Tolk's dislike of animation came from how Disney made dwarves and fairies, who in the myths are powerful and beautiful and dangerous beings, into silly comic relief, and Tolk wrote the dwarves in his world the way he did to counter so much of Disney, even though the later films made Gimli silly. :/ But Tolkien wouldn't've been happy with any film, live-action or animated. He believed, rightly or wrongly, that fantasy only worked in a written or oral medium, on the page on from the mouth, because it allowed your imagination to work its wonders. If you read or hear about a dragon, you have your own personal dragon in your head, but if you see a dragon, you aren't given that freedom. So any visual adaptation, screen or stage, went against what Tolkien thought was the spirit of fantasy.
@@ZephLodwick I say this as someone who adores the lord of the rings trilogy. I grew up with the extended edition dvd box set, have it in my collection still to this day even as I have the bluray edition and they were a huge inspiration for me artistically but... yeah animation given the proper resources would been such a great fit for a story like lord of the ring. I mean you look at a film like princess mononoke, and you cannot tell me that animation cannot deliver that kind of sweeping epic, somber story, as well as showcasing the beauty of the world around us.
@@LaurianeG. There may be just too much of a perception of animation being for children's cartoons and Disney movies in America, and this perception of it only being associated with cliche kid's products may make it untenable for western filmmakers to pitch actual epic and deep animated projects marketed for non child audiences.
Tbf, Boorman's LOTR script was absolutely insane lmao
I just came for Helen Mirren
(Also, I've loved Excalibur ever since I was an actual child in the '80s)
Don't we all? She was just coming off of Caligula too!
BvS take on Luthor definitely makes more sense if he was going for Nichol Williamson's Merlin, a goofy weirdo who feels like he's from a whole other movie.
Luthor is the least i have a problem with in the movie. Ther are weasly cowardly luthor versions and , eisenberg has helly fun playing him. He was the least bad thing. And seemed thew only one actually having to have fun.
BVS Lex Luther is the best version of the character because he tricked; Batman, Superman and the audience. Like Batman and Superman Lex also has a public alter ego. He plays the stereotypical socially awkward, weak, nerd. Rewatch the scene where Lex meets both Bruce and Clark. He purposely makes himself not look like a threat. There are only 1-2 scenes where he shows his true face. One is where he is in his study talking about his father and Superman.
@@marocat4749i truly wonder what's the 'other' problems or issues you have with the movie...
is is the 'Martha' scene or is it Batman offing in general or both...
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
@@godzillazfriction like the ris no superman. The movie has no superman people love that would have such an affect, and its the direction, not cavils fault.
also yes if batman has no qualms shooting freaking people with mashinegun, thats not batman, but the punisher.
And yeah there are fun campy luthers, he is the most accurate in portrayal.
@@marocat4749 enGlisH pls...
One thing I'll always say in defense of Snyder is that he's the only filmmaker I've ever known who has used a realistic POV of a character looking through binoculars (in that first zombie movie he made). It might actually be the only film in film history that has such a POV shot!
I watched Rebel Moon with my wife. We both cringed at how bad it was, yet we could not stop watching it. Just like a gruesome train wreck. There was enough there that was interesting to keep us watching it. The robot voiced by Anthony Hopkins was my favotire part of the film.
"Excalibur" was AMAZING! As a teenager in the 80s, this film, Ridley Scott's "Legend", "Dragon Slayer", "Ladyhawke", "Krull", "Conan the Barbarian" and, God help me, "The Beastmaster", got me excited for the fantasy genre in films and books. I miss those magical days.
"High-five" to you internet person, all of those for me as well! My sister and I love Beastmaster for the camp it was 😊
Do you know "Hawk the Slayer" as well?
The 80's was the best decade for film ever. The real Golden Era. An all time classic came out pretty much every month
Goodness
If you look at the sign on the theater in BvS it says "now playing Zorro, coming soon Excalibur"
I want a version where the movie the Waynes saw was Antonio Banderas' The Mask of Zorro. Alas, I don't think Pattinson's Bruce is the right age for it to work.
@@JCIce007 well in any case, they saw Zorro in BvS
@@JCIce007 If anything, I'd guess Pattinson's Bruce went to see The Crow
Your bringing up _A Princess of Mars_ made me draw a parallel between Snyder's work, most of which I haven't seen, and Edgar Rice Burroughs's work, the "shallowness". I've read all 11 of _John Carter of Mars_ stories, and I loved them. ERB constructs this world that does feel like a lived-in world even if the worldbuilding doesn't go as deep as Tolkien's work or _Dune._ As I was reading, I realized that I'd built my own story, my own characters, around the bones laid out by Burroughs. There are hints of really complex and interesting, even tragic characters, especially his villains, who I'd say are a consistent weakspot in Burroughs's story. I realize my headcannon had overshadowed the story written on the page. I could talk about Carthoris's relationship with John Carter, or Carthoris's relationship with Gahan of Gathol, or Tars Tarkas's relationship with Dejah Thoris. But how much of that is my version of Burroughs or Burroughs himself?
Here to just briefly be a (currently lone) voice in favor of Snyder and Excalibur in the comments. You say "the themes are strong on paper but not in execution," but those themes do land for many of us. I want to Thank You for being as generous to us Snyderinos as you are. You never trash-talked us, or him. I appreciate that a lot.
I don't believe it's right to ever criticize someone for enjoying media. I will criticize a film, but that criticism never extends to the character of its creator or its audience... unless the content is particularly depraved or illicit, or the director themselves is just an awful person, like Victor Salva or Roman Polanski. And even then, those criticisms would be very centered on the individual bas actors, not sweeping statements.
You are not alone.
@@agramuglia Zack Synder reminds me of Menahem Golan, writer, director, and co-owner of Cannon films.
Absolutely. One of the best things about 80s fantasy in general, was that those movies get weird as fuck. You truly never knew what insanity was waiting in the next scene.
Zac Snyder is like so many Directors who think that because they know how to direct a fictional story, this means they know how to write and tell a fictional story. Abrams, Snyder, Lucas .. ideas guys who direct ( though Lucas did not like it ) but also lack any ability to write a script. Rebel moon part 1 is a rich mans clone of Seven Samurai and Army of the Dead is just Aliens but Zombies with extra steps.
ALIENS (1986) was yet another structural remake of THE LOST PATROL (1929).
@@calmvibes3709 interesting. I will look into that 👍🏻
52:14 I do agree we need more bold directors, but I dont think Snyder is it for this comparison, because even a bold director should be able to dive into critiscism and see if there is something in their body of work that they did wrong. Yet here is Zacky, complaining almost a decade later that people didnt like his Batman killing, but never actually reflecting on why the audience.
Why I partially feel that Zack needs to improve on his work-life balance at best and find other works that he can fall in love with and be inspired, rather than just one life-changing movie. The spark IS there, and there's a talented director in there. The problem is that he needs to learn when to just call it a day if things aren't exactly working out for him.
If said "audience" has almost 0 to nothing knowledge of source material (the actual one, ie all 77 years of it and all its history and the Why for no kill/no gun and how different writers handled it, etc) in the first place what is there to talk and to whom? At best you will have video games with ludo-narrative dissonance (ie Batman and Red Hood will punch one guy same way, Bat's detective vision will say he is just sleeping, Red Hood will register 0 pulse) and also will pretend that superheroes/Batman in Non-Snyder movies never kill just because they said so , even if realistically (ie point from which people even accuse Snyder's DC characters of killing) people they "non lethally" punch or worse can be very well dead.
@@FirstnameLastname-my7bz I think you are underestimating just how popular a character Batman is. Like, even people who only engage with him in one medium (games, movies, animation, comics, etc...) will know at least the basics of the character, and the no-kill rule is a pretty basic thing for him. "Oh but in the other movies it looks like he did killed or should have", thats never a point of discussion in the story itself, you can just assume he didnt do it there even when it looks like it should have happened. That suspencion of disbelief is far from the most absurd thing a regular movie has asked of its audience, never mind a super hero movie.
But even then, even if you are completely in the dark with anything Batman related, because of the way the character is presented throughout the entire movie, it doesnt look like Superman befriended a fellow superhero, it looks like he befriended a psychotic serial killer. And I am pretty sure that wasnt intentional from the narrative.
@@GabrielLopes-jj8rx no it's just lazy mental gymnastics, you really don't know Batman at all. In fact many of you clinging to no kill Absolutism which was NEVER part of character (not to mention in comics All superheroes don't kill, Avengers too), neither was Ras Al Ghul training Batman or whatever you think is "basic thing" about him.
And frankly Zack was born in 60s and grew up in 70s and 90s. You don't even know that Batman got his automatic grappling gun only after Tim Burton films (in which he also killed Because writers researched original comics) and before that Batman always used just manual rope.
You can assume he never killed anyone in BvS just like you easily assume he never did in your favorite video games, cartoons or movies made by non-Snyder
@@FirstnameLastname-my7bz Dont see the need for this passive aggressiveness, since it gives me a negative light of you, but regardless, yes, Batman has killed...back in the 40's, which is something both Kane and Finger disliked doing. Ever since, the no-kill rule has been an integral part of the character, what you are trying to argue is like saying that Spider-Man being someone that always has money problems is something recent, no, its part of the character, none of those have anything to do with random wikipedia facts you listed nor Snyder's age.
And no, you cant assume Batman didnt kill someone, not when the director later goes on interview to brag about it, he does verything in his power to take away that room for suspension of disbelief
I adore both Excalibur and Zardoz, their issues included. The Exorcist 2 was laughably bad... just ignore it 😂
its better to see the exorcist 3 without seeing either of the ones that came before if I'm being honest, and I love the Exorcist.
I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t intrigued to see the upcoming Arrow blu ray release for The Heretic.
Doomslayer agrees: THE GUN IS GOOD!
Excailber was filmed not too far from where I lived. And it's weird to think of a Lord of the RIngs were locations were scouted in Ireland rather than New Zealand. Still its funny for King Artur to be filmed in WIcklow, like of all the places for the legadary KIng of England to pull the sword from the stone, its Ireland's Wicklow.
AIn't the place I'd pick.
Honestly, filming King Arthur in Ireland sounds like a pretty English thing they'd do...
@@agramugliato be fair Arthur wasn't Saxon or Norse. The original legends were Celtic and Excalibur runs with it with the charm of making being in badly pronounced old Irish and Merlin being essentially a druid. Depending on the version he even defended Britain from the Saxons.
it fits, and ireland looks good.
Its way weirder that a lot american series are filmed in canada
he shot Zardoz in the same locations and several of the same extras also pop up
Patrick H Willems did a video where he evaluates the way Robert Zemeckis got obsessed with the toys of digital animation and cg effects.
This felt comparable in how the more creative control they had, the less coherent the story
I was absolutely convinced that Monty Python and the Holy Grail was a merciless parody of Excalibur. Every scene seems to rip into that stupid film. Then I found out Excalibur actually came out a few years later.
so they tried to make a movie that made Sense of Montys version?
Monty python are a comedy group to be fair, whatever they make is a parody of something
Excalibur ain’t so stupid after all
The Holy Grail was more a parody of British society than any specific film about Arthurian lore.
It's actually more a parody of the Robert Bresson 1974 film Lancelot du Lac, which was the first 'dark 'n' gritty' take on Arthurian legend.
This is, hands down, the very best review of Zack as a filmmaker, his hit or miss works, objective but also nuanced, arguments backed by research, with statements backed by intelligent and well written dialogue. You sir have a new subscriber and fan.
I think that with Excalibur Boorman knew what he was doing to a much greater extent Snyder does.
Snyder is a bit like JJ Abrams trying to ape old franchises he likes without getting why they worked in the first place.
Watchmen is pretty much a product of that, he apes the GN but doesn't understand why certain thing are the way they are in it.
I do agree with this.
Yep, snyder has a niche audience due his weird dark unemorional where excalibur, in the worst case looks shlocky fun, which is fun. Oh that he was high on the movie explains a lot vibes, but reagardless fun. Snyder should learn the definition of fun. even in a dark miserable drama you need some fun.
Hell suckerpunch is , its not good but probably his most respectable due being interesting. Ok he wouldnt be nearly as director if he did , ok a messy interesting auteur movie is alway way way better than one ruining adaptions by being clearly the wrong fit.
This is why Snyder needs to make his Ayn Rand movie already. Missing the point would be an improvement.
@@gapsule2326deep cuts!
For what it's trying to do: cram all the major beats of the Arthur mythos into 2 hours and 20 minutes, Exclibur succeeds probably as much as is possible. However, trying to do *that* was always going to be a major problem. I wish we could see what Boorman had to cut for the runtime. I know there was supposed to be more of Gawain and Morgana, and Lancelot rescuing Guinivere.
Ive often wondered if the visuals come to Zack before the story. Like he builds his stories around key visual moments as opposed to crafting sequences that fit the stories
Other directors like Alfred Hitchcock did it better.
I can't begin to explain how deeply the mythology affects me, but I have been in love with Arthurian legend for as long as I can remember. Excalibur was my first exposure to the subject, and I will love that movie until the day I die in spite of any technical flaws it might possess. It's one of a handful of films that were truly formative to my young imagination, and it represents many of my oldest and most heartfelt ideals.
Man, Excalibur is such a good movie. Still influencing Hollywood 4 decades on.
He needs to hire quality established writers. When he has a strong story he's fantastic. On his own it's the writing of an excited 7 year old.
Drugs? In 1970s Hollywood? Surely not!
In BvS they DID come out of a showing of Zorro! It clearly says on the marquee that Excalibur starts the next week!
❤
Dude, they saw Zorro. the Marquee is in the clip you provided. Excaliber is advertised as coming out later. Incidentally, in the Joker, Exclaibur and Zorro the Gay Blade are playing at the theatre where the Wayne's get shot.
There's 5 elite level fantasy/folklore/mythology films from the 1980's:
CONAN, THE BARBARIAN
EXCALIBUR
DRAGONSLAYER
LADYHAWKE
LEGEND
Love the Ladyhawke inclusion here. I would also add in The Dark Crystal
Ladyhawke is so overlooked, makes me sad. Such a great love story on top of all the high fantasy stuff
@@joshuadeboyer9992 i know it's a cliche at this point, but damn, the score really doesnt fit and it drags the movie down a peg.
While Flesh+Blood is not a fantasy/folklore/mythology film, its strong medieval/early renaissance aesthetics, its dark atmosphere and its christian mysticism can earn it an honorary mention.
Ty, legend needs more love
Zack Snyder is all flash no substance, he can make something look good (debatably) but doesn't understand how characters and their world interact with each other, often creating rules and motivations and either forgetting them or ignoring them for Slooooomoooo scenes.
And what grinds my gears about the guy the most is the fact that he shows no desire to self-reflect and improve. No matter how many of his movies underperform, are critically trashed and get memetically mocked, it's always the audience's fault for not understanding him.
But many people, including me, simply like fantasy movies that does not focus much on characters. The issue with character focused action movies is that they often feel the same in a way, as the character development are to often based on a few simple Hollywood tropes that are repeated again and again.
@@steinarvilnes3954 Even action focused stories need some reason for you to care about the characters and every action set peace should advance the plot in some manner. If you don't care about what happens to the characters going through the action and/or the action has no consequences, the action gets boring.
If you only want to see the action/spectacle scenes without any story context, you can find them as separated clip from youtube. Watching 2-3 hours long experience for 10-20 minutes doesn't sound worth it to me.
@@SpedeVesku To some degree, some story and character is needed, but to a lesser degree, and for me the characters of Snyder movies is simply sufficient. Also, it depends on your view of humanity. In my view, most humans are really "cardboard cutouts". Walking predictable stereotypes with nothning or little to really add to the world. I simply feel that Hollywood cater to the cultural beliefs of many Americans that the individual have more will and power to improve themselves and develop than they actually have. Also, many non Hollywood movies have more action than 10-20 minutes per 2-3 hours, such as many HK and Southeast asian movies.
In those kind of movies, the audience mostly love the actor and his/her work and care for the character because it is that particual actor, be it Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Iko Uwais or whatever.
@@steinarvilnes3954Traditionally even the most jumping the shark shut your brain off and enjoy the ride project still have character and in-universe logic to ground them, this is because for emotional moments to hit the audience needs to be engaged.....Zack Snyder is the antithesis of this he creates the rules and the scenarios but will completely ignore them while still trying to have emotion or depth examples include Man of Steel "Maybe" scene, Army of the Dead "Robot Zombies" "how long does it take to turn" and "I'm looking for my friend" scenes, and BvS infamous "Martha" scene. If Snyder was fun time who cares Director this could be potentially acceptable but he wants these scenes to be taken seriously as they ooze with melodrama.
I’m a dyed in the wool Zackolyte. The critique here is entirely legit. What I love most about this is the acceptance that “I don’t like this guy’s stuff but lots of people do and there’s a reason” was something I heard - if you forgive the Excalibur quote - with gladness. Great gladness.
All of the commentary on Snyder’s lack of attention to character is on point. I think he’s less interested in character and more about archetypes which many people intrinsically jam with . Hence his fan base.
This was a great video, subbed half way through… look forward to more.
I'd be fine with Snyder's focus on archetypes if he could actually competently execute on those archetypes...but he seems incapable of that because I don't think he understands them. He doesn't seem to understand how things like actions and words convey characters outside of the most superficial, surface-level ways and, as a result, he contradicts his own archetypes constantly.
I’ve watched a lot of Snyder’s work (from the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead to Rebel Moon) and from what I’ve noticed in a lot of his work is the idea of deconstruction. Be it the Han Solo-esc Character of Kai in Rebel Moon being a traitor, or the Superman vs Zod fight being and the destruction caused by it being the main catalyst for Batman in BVS, to even the fast zombies in Dawn of the Dead (2004).
There’s nothing wrong with deconstructing genre norms or tropes, if you have a point or something to make that involves deconstructing said topic then there’s nothing wrong with that.
The issue is with Zack’s deconstructing is that there really doesn’t seem to be much of a focus on those deconstructions. In Batman Vs. Superman and Man of Steel, they deconstruct the idea of “the no-kill rule.” however they really don’t dwell on this in either movie so it doesn’t really get the message across.
I think a big issue he has is intention and ramification. He knows the chips need to fall in a certain way, but he doesn't understand why it's important they land that way.
The biggest problem with Kai is that there's just that: "I made the evil-looking character actually evil, I am so smart, don't you think?"
Have you ever heard Snyder justify Superman killing? It's childish at best
@@rubensborges1334 I agree it’s completely childish.
@@rubensborges1334cmon, be enlightened to state his 'childishness'...
I know a couple of people online who would disagree with your points about needing more directors like Snyder and movies like his because of their driving beliefs that character-building is more important for storytelling than visual spectacle and have a growing hate for blockbusters like the MCU because of it. It's basically a desire for more arthouse movies with less mainstream and more niche appeal, even though I am against niche appeal because that's how gatekeeping is created if something niche becomes mainstream when it becomes more easily accessible to everyone.
the solution to that is to gatekeep against the gatekeepers
I disagree with the literal statement "We need more directors like Zack Snyder." We absolutely do not need more shallow, repetitive directors who have no concept of character or storytelling beyond putting a cool picture on the screen. We DO need more directors who are passionate about showing us something beautiful or epic or magical or truly a cinematic version of a painting, but realize that that is only a piece of the puzzle. All the things that Zack fails at are also necessary elements of good filmmaking. And a director who can do those things is, by definition, not a director like Zack Snyder. So I do agree that we need more directors who have the passion for the visual artistry that Zack has, but they also need to be more than that, and possess the passion for story, character, theme, humanity, and narrative flow. Zack does one thing very well, but a director has to do a hundred things well. He is not any kind of template, he's just an example of how to do one part of the job with drive and passion.
Excalibur ISN'T a mess. It does a very elegant job of condensing an extremely lengthy and complex saga into a single movie. People who regard it as a mess just aren't acquainted with the literary sources for the Arthurian story, and their lack of patience as viewers isn't really Boorman's fault.
i think they means visually messy, battle are really frantic
Disney did a bit of a dumbed down version for those people.😂
Well they didn't hand out the necessary literature at the theater and there wasn't anyone to do a Q&A beforehand.
OP, are you a Snyder fan? Because this is the sort of defense I see from his cult all the time
I love it.
It's as messy as Lynch's Dune. I love both that and this but you shouldn't need to have knowledge of the source material to understand an adaptation.
Wow, never knew Snyder was a huge Excalibur fan but it does make complete sense. I feel like the problem with Snyder is that he just sort of aped Excalibur, just like he aped Star Wars for "Rebel Moon". I agree that Excalibur required some major "suspension of critical plot analysis" at points, but I think one of the reasons that movie made such an impact is that it's an epic in every sense, and it's no coincidence that it uses a lot of the music from "The Ring" operas by Wagner. It's about mythic figures who aren't really supposed to be human or relatable, yet who are flawed, and make human mistakes. And Boorman masterfully brought the whole "history doesn't often repeat, but it usually rhymes" proverb to life with Arthur's entire arc - someone who was born through sin (i.e. the r*pe of his mother, via trickery), and eventually is brought down by the fruits of his sin (i.e. his incest, albeit being tricked himself.) There were also lots of metaphors in there, like Excalibur representing Arthur's integrity and honor, and when he abandons it just to defeat Lancelot - it shatters, and that impure act leads to his downfall. SO much good stuff in Excalibur, but when you look at Zack Snyder's work, it's like he can only comprehend the visual language, and can only mimic the moral/emotional/symbolic themes Boorman was able to put into Excalibur (some more effectively than others, for sure.) I agree Snyder is a great cinematographer, but I think we need more directors who can connect with themes and humanity.
Snyder is a terrible cinematographer, his recent movies he shot himself don't look great.
Their intentional lack of humanity is also reflective of the source material by Malory.
Damn, young Helen Mirren is a feast for the eyes! 😂
I love Excalibur, I know it's not perfect,
But it's beautiful and entertaining.
Arthur got Excalibur from the lady of the lake the sword he pulled from the stone was the sword of the king with made him worthy to be king.
2:23 wait, Snyder mentioned Excalibur and Conan as being inspirations but not Star Wars?
lol
I enjoy 300 exactly for the reason you pointed to, its ability to be read as a story of people passing down false descriptions of the past. I think the movie is unintentionally capable of being read this way, as it doesn't acknowledge any actual truth at all about the Spartans, but because of how outrageous it is and it all being told to the soldiers in the future like its story time, it lends itself to satire.
There's no way to know if Mallory was guilty of anything he was locked up for. Knights in his day could and would be imprisoned on trumped up charges for being on the wrong side of a conflict.
That is true. Historians debate the accuracy of a lot of historic criminal accounts, from everyone from Mallory to Elizabeth Bathory.
... except Gilles de Rais. He was probably guilty
Mallory sounds normal for the day and judgement by modern people that have cops and functional justice system is laughingly stupid, cattle raiding and women taking was life in these islands 1400s and rape was not judge in the same way back then ie having sex with a woman without marriage afterwards
I agree with everything said here, but I must admit the moment Arthur sees Guinevere toward the end of the film and talks about hoping they’ll meet in the afterlife as husband and wife rather than king and queen? Chokes me up
28:10 that's very nice but to me Snyder seems like a detached superficial moral objectivist without any idea what motivates heroic loving stewardship
43:57 he doesn't care he's just a BIG KID PLAYING WITH TOYS and hundreds of millions of dollars
When talking to students about Snyder, I say he is all flash, no substance. They will defend him, and I ask them to tell me what his films say with the angles. I generally will get stammers and stutters, but there is no answer. He can make a shot look great, but it mostly means nothing.
The comparison to Excalibur really nails a lot of Zack's issues. I always got the sense that many of Zack's more peculiar choices stem from "Hey wouldn't it be cool if we see..." even if it's confusing or detracts from the story, particularly strange dream sequences or glorification of heinousness. Big wooden cast standing around while two people talk at each other. Every shot framed like an overly posed photo shoot. Any moment there could be a slow-motion music video. Definitely spectacle over substance. Calling his work "Engaging" is too strong for me, since he often makes it impossible to connect with characters; it's more like we're slowing down when passing a wreck. I need a word for "dismayed fascination."
I've watch a lot of video essays on Zack Snyder, and this is easily my favorite. It's so refreshing to see someone critical of Snyder while still being good-faith.
*watched
43:32 You said it perfectly. HIs biggest problem is that he doesn't think through the story he's telling. Snyder is a good director. He's a bad storyteller. Sucker Punch is beautiful. But it's an awful story. (It's not underrated, it's that bad.) His stories have an illusion of depth, but when you actually explore it, it's very superficial, when it isn't downright incoherent. And when he's adapting someone else's work, he has such a twisted view of the original work. He completely missed the point of The Dark Knight Returns, and focused on "wouldn't it be cool to have these two characters fight". Watchmen told almost the opposite story from the comics. His love of Ayn Rand is a perfect example. He completely ignores the actual message of the books, and all he got was "architecture is cool".
Also, he has way too many films where he puts in SA. Like except for the kid's owl movie, and the DCEU, he has it in every movie. Not misogynist, but uncomfortable.
Great video! You've sold me on not hating Zack Snyder anymore.
49:44 - I do have to disagree in the small way that I thought parts of Rebel Moon were boring. It feels like 40% of the film is slow motion.
It IS a mistake to call Zack Snyder a misogynist... "Sucker Punch" is a LOT of things, but misogynistic isn't one of them. It's also a mistake to call Snyder a hack... hacks don't lay themselves on the altar to be lashed at. That's what MAKES them hacks. A hack wouldn't take bold creative swings like Zack Snyder does... even if the end-result, like the "Snyderverse" DCEU, is ultimately a swing-and-a-miss. He ain't battin' a thousand, but at least he swings for the fences.
yeah never understood labeling sucker punch misogynist too, it's just plain obvious ain't it. If you think about it it is such a bitter sweet power fantasy for everyone involved -- the characters on the screen, the viewers. The gaming narrative showing us exploitation stuff we all saw in the games and other media.
@@andreyzhuchkov1882 Yeah, the anime-cheesecake visuals are meant to be a feast for the eyes, and the "visual metaphor within a dream within a delusion" story-conceit is something no one who's seen it will soon forget.
"Remember, ladies... if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything!"
"Empowering" is a bit of a stretch.
@@RM_VFX Nobody called this film "empowering," whatever the F that means in this context. Its take on feminism is... "confused" would surely be an apt descriptor. But at least it's sincere.
Women in Sucker Punch are LITERALLY sex slaves kept in a dungeon, their only means of escape being death, lobotomy or escapism - which turns them into pinup models. THE MOVIE IS MISOGYNISTIC AS FUCK.
Snyder, probably, isn't. He's a 10-year-old boy who somehow managed to make it to 45 (in 2011) without learning anything about social relations or dynamics of oppression.
What he did there is a very basic fairy tale story - you know, for kids.
The problem is he tried making it into a story for grown ups, by making it about serious and complex issues such as mental health and abuse, with grown up characters... but without ANY understanding of the elements he was handling.
He's a 10-year-old boy, making up a story about a pretty lady slaying dragons - but he wants to do it "seriously", so everything happens in the mind of a sexually abused teenager held inside an insane asylum, facing lobotomy.
That's a hack job. Passionate and bold - but still a job done by a hack.
One can be a hack not just out of lack of interest for the quality of the finished work - a lack of talent will suffice.
And while Snyder has SOME talent in visual department (though he manages to prove himself a hack there too - convincing himself that scratched up lenses are good for his production and mastering movies with dead pixels) - he has shown again and again that he has zero talent for any kind of intellectual analysis or understanding of the story he's writing or adapting.
E.g. Had he thrown out the sexual framing and made the main characters kids in an orphanage, who then transform into power fantasy Valkyries in the escapism segments - that would have worked far better, it would mean something AND it would make sense as a child's fantasy. Think The Devil's Backbone meets Pan's Labyrinth.
34:51 lol i hated the fact that clark let his dad die when he could have used his super speed to save him and the people from the tornado with out any one seeing him since you know, faster than a speeding bullet.
Zardoz may have failed at the box office, but I still think we have to concede it's easily one of the unusual movies of the seventies - and that's saying a lot. It's certainly one of Boorman's most unusual films, and I'd be more inclined to revisit Zardoz than Excalibur. Nobody would ever get away with making something like Zardoz now - couldn't happen. And that's what makes it so special. There's just no other film like it and it's no surprise it gained a significant cult following.
I’d like to see a 4 and 1/2 hour Snyder Cut of The Poochie Saga. Lots of crying in slow motion, because that’s storytelling!
I'll always love Snyder and Zombie, like you said they're incredibly similar. It's like they absolutely don't give a shit about pleasing anyone except themselves. They don't care about norms, numbers, executives, it's JUST what they want to do, like kids with toys and a burning passion for the crazy ass movies they want to make. That makes them flawed but SO oddly genuine, passionate and fun - no brains all brawn perhaps, but these days, when things are increasingly corporate, when everything that isn't an indie is just a plastic product in a sea of similar product, that feels like water in the desert. I HOPE Snyder would find a writer that holds him tied to good character moments, subtext, meaning. That anchors him so he doesn't just go off and do ALL style (Rebel Moon, at least these first cuts, are 95% style), but no matter what I'll always like that he goes against the grain in pretty much every way. So many directors today crank out soulless movies, but Zack's are all soul, all fire and passion and fun - he just needs a writer to elevate his flaws, to keep his boyish tendencies in check a bit so when the action hits it feels earned.
Big Snyder and Excalibur fan but i think you totally hit the mark here. Honestly, I get really confused about how gross some Snyder fans can get, both bc (as you said) he himself seems super chill (and I love all his random homoeroticism) but also bc his strengths are his weaknesses depending on your taste-it makes so much sense to me that the stuff I love about him might be a barrier to entry for some. His fans often treat him as a sacred cultural cow which i think Snyder, more than anyone, would find ridiculous
Well the media over hates Snyder for no reason. His movies are treated extra special because they are heavily nick picked criticized compared to other movies. Plus you have people on social media who are influenced by these negative outlets that just ride and believe what they say without themselves analyzing the movie for themselves. A lot of the Snyder fans defend against this negativity and unjust. A lot of the criticism is just plain stupid and makes no sense.
49:25 "But, you are--from start to finish--watching that movie... It is at no point boring."
I beg to differ. I gave Rebel Moon a shot, but I didn't watch the whole thing. After opening with a phallus going through a space vagina followed by slow motion wheat harvesting, I had decided I had enough. I didn't even make it 5 minutes, and I don't think I missed anything.
Please! What is that music clip at 23:44??? I’ve heard it before-but there’s not enough to Shazam.
That is one of the songs from The Exorcist 2 soundtrack
I've been an admirer of King Arthur's greatest hits for well over 40 years now and this is the most intelligent take I've seen on it. Thank you.
That Roger Ebert critique is baffling to me. I saw this when I was very young and loved it and also comprehended it. No clue why Ebert seemed to be so befuddled by it. Maybe I just need to watch 3 or 4 Breadtubers explain all the nuances I have missed the past 40+ years?
ooh, I know. ebert was a big f@t ball of gas. in a time where no one but he, Siskel, and a handful of others did this, they were revered, undeservedly, as ''experts''. imagine only getting 4 people's opinions on ANYTHING. I'm 64. it was the way it was then. but very one-sided.
Rog had a zillion bad takes. I was more often with Gene on things.
I'm one of I think a fairly small number of people who read Watchmen as a graphic novel first, loved it, and still enjoyed Snyder's adaptation. And the reason I praise it is because while he definitely lacquered everything with high-gloss to the detriment of Moore's nuance, it's one of a very small number of movies that truly feels like watching a comic book in a good way. I did not enjoy most of Snyder's DC movies but at their heights they (and Sucker Punch, which I have a lot of mixed feelings on) captured the same feel. I would love to see him get to do more comic book movies, and to adapt them by cutting most non-essential dialogue so that the actors' expressions and the viewer's emotions can create context for each story.
And if Zach Snyder is ever let near DC again, give him retconned or elseworlds stories that were controversial, and let him go nuts. For all the reasons I did not enjoy most of his DC movies, he's one of the only people I could see making a truly watchable adaptation of the GL Parallax storyline.
You forgot to mention the Merlin Miniseries starring Sam Neil as Merlin and tells the Arthur story from his point of view.
The part where you say that Snyder would be a good cinematographer has already been proven not true because he was the cinematographer for Army of the Dead and his cinematography was not good.
I think that you are being too nice to Snyder as a filmmaker. I like some of his films but he's always the biggest problem with his films. He's bad at story and character and you can be bad at one of those but you can't be bad at both. Snyder was an interesting messy filmmaker 10 years ago but stagnation has set in. We need interesting filmmakers, even filmmakers that I personally don't vibe with but we don't need him. He adds nothing besides some cool visuals from 10-15 years ago. I wish him well in his personal life of course but I can't wait until he's in the Renny Harlin stage of his career. A once buzzy director that was always more concerned with visuals now directing low budget trash that nobody even talks about.
Holy shit, Zack Snyder would make the _absolute best_ 40k movie.
I personally dislike Tolkein's stance on animation. Western animation at the time, yeah it'd most likely wind up being a crappy kids movie but the optics of animation in the west has always been "animation is for dumb babies". If anything I respect the fact that Bakshi was approached since he was more or less an auteur in adult oriented animation. It's too bad the project didn't shape up well. I think an animated Lord Of The Rings could work. Look at Arcane
Oh yes, 100% agree here.
Excalibur and Conan two of my favorite movies. Zack has a great visual style, his story telling bad though.
"come father" I will never hear that line the same way😂😂😂
Wow, finally a good take on Zack Snyder. It acknowledges his pros and cons, and comes into a believable and plausible conclusions. I don't think he's really been "offensive", just in bad taste with his certain stereotypes or depictions. But there are also a lot of people who funnily enough relate to those stereotypes because... Well they are stereotypes for a reason. People just have fun and don't always want to think too hard about these things and how dangerous they are to our society blah blah blah blah
I always loved Excalibur - too a degree that I couldn't see it's flaws for the longest time. I first saw it as a kid and was thrilled and I bet this first impression helped my opinion of the movie. I couldn't have picked up on complex character dynamics, nuances, and plots back than - but I for sure new this looked great, was epic, and every ten minutes or so something else was going on to keep my attention. When I got older I rationalized it's shortcoming: "Well the movie clearly mirrors the writing style of medievil hero tails, where they tell the deads of the knight without a clear plot progression or character studies - so that's actually very smart and epic...." - I don't believe that now, but there is no way that I won't enjoy Excalibur while watching it.
Heard this take from patrick h william, but love your angle on it!!
I actually miss the 80s sci fi fantasy film era. 😂 Dragonslayer still holds up.
Much like Excalibur, Snyder films are much more impressive when you're 13 than they are later in life. I would also hesitate to call his tiresome sepia color grade a visual feast today.
The whole point of Excalibur imo is that the characters are locked into the roles they are being required to play to the extent that they can't be the people they would like to be. It's much more like a Greek tragedy than some sort of psychological drama. The suffering that takes place is largely because Arthur forgets/neglects the role he is supposed to serve. No one character exemplifies "humanity" and they largely emblematic of different things like responsibility, shame, hope, etc. Probably the most compelling person is Perceval, who suffers greatly and fails but never gives up on his idealistic belief in the good.
As a child of the 80's, I "got" films like Excalibur. That said, Mr. Snyder is no John Boorman.
Fun you compare Zach's films to Excalibur because that's one of my favorite films of all time. Only seen the first few minutes of this video because I don't like watching videos about Zach Snyder but I love your work. Binged some of your videos the other day and just finished the Harry Potter video before starting this one. That video was amazing.
The only Arthurian films I can think of with the full sword-in-the-stone to death cycle are Knights of the Round Table (1953) and the miniseries The Mists of Avalon (2001).
300 seems especially timely now, namely the element of the bribed senator, given how many US politicians are in Putin's pocket.
I love both Man of Steel and My Adventures With Superman, even though I suspect that the latter was inspired in part as a correction of the former.
I read the script for Excalibur first and still think it's one of the best scripts I have ever read. Then I saw the movie and was dissapointed by the final result.
I still think Excalibur is a much better movie than anything that Snyder has done, and I don't think it's messy.
Snyder also wants Batman to get r^ped.
Exactly! He’s not winning hearts with that one. The dude needs a better therapist.
He said as a joke. Why are you taking it so seriously?
When you think about it, Uther showed humanity towards Arthur when Arthur was born in Excalibur because it was all lust in the beginning. Lancelot showed humanity for Arthur when he tried to tell Guinevere to stay away from him. And Arthur could have killed Lancelot but he didn't. Arthur showed humanity towards his son but his son rejected him. When the whole knighting scene is shown, it shows humanity. There are other scenes as well when you go back and watch the film. I totally get your point about the Holy Grail scenes.
i'm one who "can't stand" Snyder's films. But i like Excalibur.
I don't like the way he films people, and his visual style gives me a headache.
my favorite visual directors are Lynch and Almodóvar, so it should come as no surprise that Snyder's style is a giant turn off for viewers like me.
Nothing against the man, i know nothing about him and harbor nothing personal. Just don't like his movies.
I also think Excalibur is very British movie, communicating the British discomfort with emotion. Boorman seems to substitute myth for simple human emotion.
If you want to see emotion, watch how Almodóvar shoots women or how Hitchcock shoots his male protagonists: the human drama is clear.
British culture substitutes wit for human emotion.
Zack Snyder's a director that I really respect as a person (based off of what people that worked with him say) and as a visual director, but his ideas are just really bad imo
which ideas?
@@kafukwamekemeh
All of them.
I enjoyed your video, but we would not agree on some points. Not that that is a problem. But I will try to convince you of a nuanced point of Excalibur that has always stood out to me. I keep a very short mental list of moments in movies where good things happen to good people who are third tier characters at best. For reference, a prime example of this is the mother in Miracle on 34th St who has adopted a Dutch speaking child and the utter joy on her face when Santa speaks to the girl in Dutch. Excalibur’s portrayal of Kay makes him a good, humble supportive brother, but doesn’t overplay it. But, at the end of it all, Merlin makes sure to come visit him also as he did Arthur. That type of subtle acknowledgement of how Kay did not walk the route of Jealousy and deserved his moment amongst all others IS subtle, IS human and IS everything that you claim that this movie lacks. Think it over. It is ok to change your mind.
I understand your argument, but i just don't find that humanizing enough there. It feels a little too detached, imo, though on paper sounds human. If that makes sense. I would have liked to have seen more overt humanity.
Why no mention of Terry Gilliam's struggles to get his Big Vision on the silverscreen?
35:32, Your point about Batman not doing anything against Doomsday is kind of invalid like although we see him try to evade Doomsday, we see him shoot Kryptonite gas bombs to weaken Doomsday as wonder woman is tying him her lasso. And in 36:14 you are aware that was a dream sequence Batman had of the knightmare timeline so them not reacting to anything is kind of irrelevant.
The Knightmare isn't merely a dream. It's a vision of the future. As for the Kryptonite with Doomsday, he stands on the sidelines until he does one thing. That's still the point.
@@agramuglia Yeah the knightmare is a vision but still a dream where superman gets to them and Bruce literally wakes up from it
and about the doomsday thing i mean he can't go against a indestructible kryptonian like zombie, all he can do is try and help weaken it which he did,
@@kafukwamekemeh So you agree that the climax of the entire film is set-up in such a way that it functionally sidelines/invalidates one of the co-protagonists/namesakes of the film?
Yeah that's bad storytelling.
A much better villain for Batman & Supes is someone like Brainiac whom can threaten Superman with his advanced tech but that same reliance on technology means he is vulnerable to Batman's intellect as much as Superman's powers.
Doomsday was a terrible choice (amongst dozens of other terrible choices Snyder made in the DCEU)
@@yagamifire7861 yeah, twelve level intellect alien/robot/cyborg is "obviously" very vulnerable to a guy with kung fu and realistic Earth (is 3-4 level intellect at best) whom even Superman can't always outsmart.
It's "terrible" decision to adequately showing power scale. Amazing.
@@agramuglia it's not a point, Batman stands on sidelines because he would be immediately killed. It's called respecting characters and the audience and showing adequate scale.
You have absolutely profoundly ridiculous takes from calling Excalibur messy to this and all other "points".
Man, this makes so much sense. I was wondering about what his deal was, but this actually great.
Loved "Excalibur" more ...
I’ve long since figured that Zack Snyder’s problem was him not being able to Craft Films on his own. And After watching this video, I’m glad to see more people are able to see this truth!
Zack Synder has ALWAYs envisioned this EPIC Scope, but I always felt his brain was stuck in his Edgy Teenager phase when I looked back at his Earlier Movies, mainly Dawn of the Dead and Sucker Punch.
There was a Deleted scene that gave me the wrong vibes, it was at the beginning of the film after the Main Character (the Lady) jumps into her car, only to stop in front of a torn up highway!
A Random naked, Blood covered woman in Shock randomly walks by as the window as the Main Character looks at the attack of another girl by two zombies! That part that now felt more like Rape Scene than a Zombie attack. And more than likely it was either James Gunn or someone else who pointed that scene out and decided to remove it. And I am Glad for that!
But it goes to show that these sorts of Contexts for scenes tend to get mixed into a lot of his films for easy (or Lazy) emotional moments.
Fuckin' hell, JAWS is my favorite movie of all time but not every idea I have looks or feels like the stuff in it. In fact, most of them don't because the narrative isn't tonally or thematically similar. The fact that a single film controls every aspect of his entire aesthetic is troubling. And EXCALIBUR of all movies!
In fairness though, if he adapted THE FOUNTAINHEAD, I would totally see it. I think Ayn Rand is worse than Hitler, but I would definitely pay to see what he would do with it.
I know you're being hyperbolic (or hope so, at least) but why compare Ayn Rand and Hitler?
Once was a demagogue who caused the deaths of millions, and the other was a somewhat libertarian writer that hated communism and every other form of collectivism.
@@freman007 Hitler convinced 79M people they were superior to the entire planet and had the right to conquer it for an entitlement of pride. Roughly 21M people died when it was over and if you include Soviet casualties during Stalin's mobilization purges, that number can be about 70M.
Rand convinced about 4x that many people that the social contract was a slave collar and to abandon it completely. The biosphere is collapsing due to the ambitions of the sociopathic financial cult she created. If successful, 8.1B humans and all other life on Earth will perish.
Rand is worse.
Hey TonE, that was a great video.
I love Excalibur
What is 4:19 from?
The pause at 49:50 is why I subscribed.
If only Zack could get some top notch actors like Boorman had.
Excalibur is not “messy” movie it is a masterpiece of riveting cinema. From the opening notes to the ending. Best adaptation of Arthurian Legend on the big screen.
One Reviewer I know Who Reviewed Fantasy Films called “Here there be Dragons”.
He Basically states that “Excalibur is about Grandeur and Awe! But doesn’t Tell anything New, nor does it go out of its way to Explore the Myths Characters! It’s a Retelling of the Old Stories, but it’s all about the Pretty lights.”
@@danielramsey6141 bad take. Excalibur is a classic retelling of arthurian legends and it does do many things new the way it weaves it into a wagnerian opera fantasy is something that had not been done before on screen before or since
@@danielramsey6141 That’s just willful ignorance. Arthur interprets himself in a way that is entirely new when he says, “I was not born to live a man’s life but to be the stuff of future memory.” That is an acknowledgement by Boorman that EXCALIBUR is not a film meant to depict people realistically but allegorically. Their speech and actions exist for symbolic purpose. The ideas represented by these symbols have far greater value than any individual. That is also the meaning of the Grail in EXCALIBUR which differs from
Mallory and Arthurian tradition by conflating Arthur with the Fisher King. Boorman and Pallenberg are the first two guys who actually give voice to the Grail’s sacred questions AND allow Percival to give the answers, as well.
I would love you and anyone else to take a look at the script that John Boorman wrote for a lord of the rings adaptation. He and Rospo Pallenberg wrote quite honestly the most uniquely weird story that I've ever read.
I began reading it for the video, but realized that deserves a deep dive in and of itself
@@agramuglia yeah it’s bonkers
That movie is my favorite telling of the story, even now.
One of my favourite films ever. I've got a copy of the poster and replica of the sword on my wall.
...One film. For the entirity of Arthurian legend. That... That's one hell of a choice.
I think snyder wants to write sagas and epics. Grand stories with grand themes. He has big ideas and has talent for it.
But his pitfalls are when he misses the the trees for the forest. A lot of the time he neglects characters for the grander story.
Nobody will care about the lord of the rings if they don’t care about Frodo. Or Sam. Or Aragorn. Or any of those characters.