Lol. Should at least watch it so he can judge for himself.
Movies You've Seen Recently: Return of the Revenge of the Curse of the...
- Thread starter Cosmic Bus
- Start date
- Status
Lol. Should at least watch it so he can judge for himself.
Johnlenham
Member
Nah Kent, I just have a floor space in london that I abuse
If I was up there this weekend I imagine the Ritzy in Brixton would be showing it. I also just meant that the same thing happend with The tree of life in that wasnt shown anywhere down here! Didnt realize it was out though so maybe ill just rent that instead.
News has slowly been dripping in for this years Film Festival in Rotterdam. Today the complete line-up of one program has been announced, is there anything you guys are like: 'YOU HAVE TO SEE THAT!'?
http://www.filmfestivalrotterdam.com/en/iffr-2012/programme/spectrum/spectrum-complete-line-up/
I might just go to Miike's Ace Attorney for the lulz
http://www.filmfestivalrotterdam.com/en/iffr-2012/programme/spectrum/spectrum-complete-line-up/
I might just go to Miike's Ace Attorney for the lulz
I think you should go see Ace Attorney. It will probably be awesome even if the movie isn't good. Le Havre is supposed to be very good and so is The Descendants.
Expendable.
Member
Yeah, I can't wait to see The Comedy at Sundance. The Hunter was average, nothing great. I've heard Le Havre, The Loneliest Planet and Miss Bala were great. Alps was a step-down from Dogtooth, but worth seeing. I loved Wuthering Heights as well.
lazybones18
Banned
With pleasure
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
ditto.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
See above. Hunger is a great work of art, one that is political but great primarily because of its approach to its art, not because it takes this or that stance.
-Its spare use of music is absolutely brilliant, as it puts you more firmly into the position of the prisoners and makes the heavy use of ambient noise all the more beautifully.
-Speaking of, the ambient noise is hella affecting, especially the way that things sort of loop around (such as the banging of the plates resonating later with the riot squad banging their clubs on their shields).
-That dialogue shot is brilliant, plain and simple. For one, the writing is great, with the shot starting off with the two believably bullshitting and then leading in to the real, political meat of their discussion. Not to mention that it cut at just the right time, leading into this great five-minute long take on Fassbender's memorable faun monologue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jxPvmV0rrQ <---Can you really watch that and tell me that it's not great writing and acting?
-What's so ultimately great about the movie, though, is how it conveys so much with so little. There are really only two dialogue-heavy scenes in the entire film, yet you feel like you know the characters far better because both the framing and their acting gives you the impression that you have come to understand them on a deeper level, while closer examination reveals just how much was left unsaid.
-Not to mention, the film's ending is extremely affecting and devastating; we've just seen a man waste away to nothing, yet in the end, this effort by him (and by 9 other unseen men, to boot!) ends up being futile, given that Thatcher (in the film an unseen specter, looming over all, an interesting use of a technique opposite Clooney's choice in Good Night and Good Luck to show McCarthy in all his blustering paranoia) never recognized their political status, and Ireland still remains divided.
Hunger is a real work of art by a real artist, one of the most refreshing and promising to come out of the previous decade. In an age of mumblecore and action movies, he's a man who knows how to plunge to the depth of a story with minimalism and a certain grace, even in the swirling of feces on a prison wall. I actually can't say how excited I am to see Shame now.
Edit: And I repeat my claim. It's a tough sit; therefore, one can like or dislike it as they please. But if one separates oneself from such an emotional response momentarily, then the greatness of the movie - art being about communication taken to its highest level and form - is apparent. THIS is exactly what people have claimed to want for practically the entire decade, yet the movie seems criminally underseen. But, McQueen is still young, and if Shame is as good as I've heard, then I suspect that his reputation can only go up from here.
Just watched Drive. I was really disappointed by it. I know a lot of GAF rate it very highly but the whole thing felt flat to me, even Carey Mulligan who has been masterful elsewhere the last year or two. I think it handled the violence really well, but other than that quite weak to me.
Quite a few big disappoints for me from 2011 really. This year looks to be great though. Looking forward to Shame in a week or two, hopefully Mulligan is on top form again.
Quite a few big disappoints for me from 2011 really. This year looks to be great though. Looking forward to Shame in a week or two, hopefully Mulligan is on top form again.
it's well written and acted and its competently shot. i'm sure he'll become a great director at some point, unless he goes all DGG but i don't find it visually interesting at all. and i'm pretty sure i don't think you can say i (or many people) want our movies to be like (for a whole decade?!). the same way you can't say art is about communication, when its a form of communication, i'm not ever going to be interested in that sort of reductive thinking.
the long take dialogue is sign of maturity and restraint, but not necessarily great film-making and certainly it contains nothing about what i want in film. i'd rather read hunger or watch the actors read it around a table than watch it again.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I'm hard-pressed to think of many films from the previous decade that outdo Hunger, on the whole. I'm not saying that it's a PERFECT movie - for my money, the scenes where he flashes back to the story that he'd told the priest were overdone - but it's far, far better than both many acclaimed films from last decade and acclaimed films from world cinema on the whole.
And what is not interesting about the look of Hunger? Granted, the camera's not doing THAT much (it doesn't need to), but given how well every shot was framed, and how good the art design is throughout, does that really matter? I'm hard-pressed to think of many moments from the previous decade that match, say, the surreality of the HazMat guy staring at the shit that had been smeared on the wall in the shape of a target. It's a character moment, both for the man looking at it and for the prisoners that smeared it in that pattern, and it's a purely visual moment. The film's visuals elaborated well on the story within, and it's simply false to reduce the film to merely its screenplay and performances or to say that it doesn't use cinematic techniques to make itself interesting. The sound design alone was more captivating and intellectually/emotionally affecting than anything that I've ever seen in a Godard film, let alone how much better the writing and acting was.
And what I meant by the "this is what people WANT" comment is that we've spent the whole last decade looking for a great artist, one with a powerful voice and a clear command of his art, to emerge. If Hunger - as well as the great reception that Shame has gotten - is any indication, then Steve McQueen is just that, a true auteur in the mold of those who have come before him.
Edit: And of course art IS a form of communication; that's exactly what I meant in saying that it's about communication. I didn't mean it in the didactic sense that "the art with the most information is the best," I meant it in the sense that the art that uses its form and technique to convey the most information in the most sophisticated, artistic way is, generally, the best.
And what is not interesting about the look of Hunger? Granted, the camera's not doing THAT much (it doesn't need to), but given how well every shot was framed, and how good the art design is throughout, does that really matter? I'm hard-pressed to think of many moments from the previous decade that match, say, the surreality of the HazMat guy staring at the shit that had been smeared on the wall in the shape of a target. It's a character moment, both for the man looking at it and for the prisoners that smeared it in that pattern, and it's a purely visual moment. The film's visuals elaborated well on the story within, and it's simply false to reduce the film to merely its screenplay and performances or to say that it doesn't use cinematic techniques to make itself interesting. The sound design alone was more captivating and intellectually/emotionally affecting than anything that I've ever seen in a Godard film, let alone how much better the writing and acting was.
I chose Godard to attack swoon's weak point for massive damage, but I believe that with 100% of my being.
And what I meant by the "this is what people WANT" comment is that we've spent the whole last decade looking for a great artist, one with a powerful voice and a clear command of his art, to emerge. If Hunger - as well as the great reception that Shame has gotten - is any indication, then Steve McQueen is just that, a true auteur in the mold of those who have come before him.
Edit: And of course art IS a form of communication; that's exactly what I meant in saying that it's about communication. I didn't mean it in the didactic sense that "the art with the most information is the best," I meant it in the sense that the art that uses its form and technique to convey the most information in the most sophisticated, artistic way is, generally, the best.
i don't agree, but why does it matter if there was a film in the last decade that equals hunger? i mean films aren't sports teams. and i don't think hunger is bad in anyway, just not great and not the savior of art.
it's just very clinical and functional at times. i mean there's not bad about it, but there's nothing special or great about either. i mean the shit as art scene is good so are some of the scenes the conversations with the priests are even better, but it's just that - functional and i'm sure functional art has its place, but i don't care at all.
also like godard not only innovated in narrative/edited but he was also one of the first to use silence as a "sound." vivre sa vie uses zero sound brillitantly, gunshots in made in usa, traffic in 2 or 3 things/weekend are brilliant in non-standard soundtracks, plus his more traditional use of pop music throughout most of his films, but especially woman is a woman, i mean i just don't really know what you are talking about it's pretty key in the new wave just in general.
i mean just think that young directors of all the new waves (french, german, japanese, american, czech, etc) were considered about pushing film forward and not making these visually tepid character pieces we are receiving now. and how you can actually discuss interesting things about all of them beyond functional camera work and good acting.
maybe it's me,but auteur needs to have a distinctive visual style, mcqueen makes bmw ads. he is a good writer and maybe he'll become a good director, sure, but i think there is another theory about screenwriters being the key to filmmaking that he'd fit better into.
i think you mean, that's want you want. this perverse desire to look for a post aught powerful artistic voice and finding it in mcqueen might be local to your echo chamber.
i think we've had this conversation, but i don't think art has any desire or purpose to convey the most information and those who convey more are better. that seems more like sports than art.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
swoon, after years of this, I just kind of doubt that the discussion will go anywhere. But I will say that since every shot of the film is very good-looking and says quite a bit, not only about the characters but about the situation as well. I'll also say that while Godard used silence and pop music, he did such rather boringly most of the time and that, decades later, the hollowness of what he was doing is a lot more obvious and transparent. And I don't think that it's just me that would be that impressed by hunger; I know you think that I focus on writing too much, but since all art is derived from the human tradition of storytelling, crystallized through the techniques specific to a genre, I think that it is probably the most important thing, most of the time. The majority of people, when you ask why they go to a movie, read a book, etc. say that they "just want a good story." While this gets exploited into the boring, generic 3-act structure that allows people to pump out soulless work in an attempt to cash in well, I do think that the idea behind it - that it is through narrative that art has any meaning or context - is sound. So, I'm unimpressed by men like Godard writing poor narratives and falling back on "intertextuality" and "intent" to alibi for it, and VERY impressed by men like McQueen, men who know how to cut right to the emotional and intellectual center of a narrative while masking what they're doing almost effortlessly. And, as I said, whatever Godard may have been trying to do with his use of sound, the simple banging of plates or the banging of riot shields is a lot more viscerally and mentally affecting than anything that I've EVER seen out of the half-dozen Godard movies that I watched, soundwise or otherwise. Also, if an auteur is one who brings their vision to the screen and uses the directorial eye to give you just the right perspective on the narrative, then McQueen most certainly is an auteur.
Anyway, saw Hugo today. It was pretty charming, albeit very predictable and probably about twenty minutes too long to really be the children's film that it claims to be. You'd never, ever guess that Scorsese directed it, though; whatever he had that made him a truly special artist, I think that he's lost it.
On a positive note, though - the 3D actually kind of worked for it! The layers being very distinct and flat-looking gave it the feel of a pop-up storybook, giving it a layer of whimsy that helped to redeem some of the more Hollywood-y elements, like the resolution.
Edit: also, I don't mean information in some sort of mechanized sense, but when people speak of a particular work of art having depth, I think that they're generally talking about the insight that it offers into its narrative, the possibility for multiplicity of meaning, the way that the artist applies perspective, and the like. I'm troubled at the idea of art just being the new religion, where art is good "just because" or because it gives people some particular kind of feeling. Granted, great art will ALWAYS have that little bit of the ineffable, that question of how, exactly, something like it could exist, but art, like every other field, has objective attributes allowing one to compare different things within it against one another. It's not like sports in that the metrics aren't precise, the rules aren't delineated, but there IS competition in art, make no mistake. Competition is what drives any human endeavor forward, keeps the wheels churning.
Anyway, saw Hugo today. It was pretty charming, albeit very predictable and probably about twenty minutes too long to really be the children's film that it claims to be. You'd never, ever guess that Scorsese directed it, though; whatever he had that made him a truly special artist, I think that he's lost it.
On a positive note, though - the 3D actually kind of worked for it! The layers being very distinct and flat-looking gave it the feel of a pop-up storybook, giving it a layer of whimsy that helped to redeem some of the more Hollywood-y elements, like the resolution.
Edit: also, I don't mean information in some sort of mechanized sense, but when people speak of a particular work of art having depth, I think that they're generally talking about the insight that it offers into its narrative, the possibility for multiplicity of meaning, the way that the artist applies perspective, and the like. I'm troubled at the idea of art just being the new religion, where art is good "just because" or because it gives people some particular kind of feeling. Granted, great art will ALWAYS have that little bit of the ineffable, that question of how, exactly, something like it could exist, but art, like every other field, has objective attributes allowing one to compare different things within it against one another. It's not like sports in that the metrics aren't precise, the rules aren't delineated, but there IS competition in art, make no mistake. Competition is what drives any human endeavor forward, keeps the wheels churning.
So the wife and I are going out tonight to dinner and a movie. What should we see? We're thinking of either Mission Impossible, The Adventures of Tintin, or Sherlock Holmes. (That's in order of my preference.)
We can only catch Tintin in 3D, (My theater only has one show in 2D today, and that was at noon,) which I wouldn't mind except I lost my contacts and don't really want to wear two pairs of glasses, and I'm a little Sherlocked out after watching every episode of the BBC Series Sherlock in the last week, so I lean toward Ghost Protocol.
I Imagine my wife's preference would be Sherlock > Mission Impossible > Tintin.
Anyone whose seen these have an opinion?
We can only catch Tintin in 3D, (My theater only has one show in 2D today, and that was at noon,) which I wouldn't mind except I lost my contacts and don't really want to wear two pairs of glasses, and I'm a little Sherlocked out after watching every episode of the BBC Series Sherlock in the last week, so I lean toward Ghost Protocol.
I Imagine my wife's preference would be Sherlock > Mission Impossible > Tintin.
Anyone whose seen these have an opinion?
Kilgore Trout
Member
Of the three I've only seen Tintin so I'll comment on that alone. It was a well done movie whose major flaw was too much action and not enough downtime, but I did see flashes of Indiana Jones in some of the more inspired sequences. In that regard some of the freedom of CGI over live action was apparent. I enjoyed my time.
Watched Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol last night. I enjoyed it, but as a fan of the tv show, it becomes more apparent with each movie that the IMF trappings in the movies are replaceable with any other secret organization from spy/thrill/action movies. I think the movies miss what made the show great; namely the brilliantly executed plan that often leaves the villian without a clue that anything even happened, and often resulted in no dead bodies. I get that this format (setup/execution/getaway) works a lot better in a 40 minute show than a 120 minute movie, but it still feels off. Almost every scene in the latest movie where the team was doing cool MI type stuff ultimately resulted in a fight scene or foot chase.
Still a great movie though, and I would recommend it.
Still a great movie though, and I would recommend it.
I wasn't rooting against her like I wanted her to be
taken back to the cult or killed
CajoleJuice
Member
I'm not 100% sober right now, but I read through the discussion of Snowman and swoon about McQueen and I'm going to side with swoon solely based on my viewing of Shame. And if Snowman focuses on writing, I think he's going to be disappointed in Shame. It's a beautifully shot film and Fassbender is fantastic in it, but there's just not much in the film to latch on to. But I haven't seen Hunger and I assume that film is very similar, so I'm probably wrong in my assumptions.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I haven't seen Shame, but it's gotten nothing but fantastic reviews from the people that I generally trust on these things. After how "meh" I've been on most of the acclaimed films of this year, that and Take Shelter are my two most-anticipated.
CajoleJuice
Member
Well, I loved Take Shelter, at least.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
And this is why I can't wait to live in Chicago or LA - I never get to see any of the good movies until months later!
Mine too! I'm angry I missed my chance to see Take Shelter when it was playing at a theater here. I still want to try to see Shame sometime this month, though I'm not sure I'll be able to. Bah. At least Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy finally got a wide release.
CajoleJuice
Member
NYC works too. I've seen so many more movies this year as a result of moving into the city.
Johnlenham
Member
2001.
First 20 mins = :O
Last 20 mins =
What on earth did I just watch about sum's it up for me.
First 20 mins = :O
Last 20 mins =
What on earth did I just watch about sum's it up for me.
Discotheque
Banned
You watched man evolve into it's highest form, da star baby
brianjones
Member
thought hunger was pretty meh too.. stylish but empty
still wanna see shame tho
edit: last night i tried to watch spartacus and couldn't do it.. it's just so dated
i guess kubrick wanted nothing to do with it so i don't feel too bad
still wanna see shame tho
edit: last night i tried to watch spartacus and couldn't do it.. it's just so dated
i guess kubrick wanted nothing to do with it so i don't feel too bad
Wow I thought I was the only one who thought that! Now I like Taxi Driver, King of Comedy, and even films like After Hours and Cape Fear a lot but recent Scorsese is meh. Aviator is good, Departed was disappointing, and Shutter Island was as predictable as it gets. Haven't seen Hugo yet.
DarkChronic
Member
Watched American Beauty for the first time a few weeks ago. Really unsettling movie, but still really great. Love Kevin Spacey.
Last week, rewatched The Usual Suspects (to keep the KS theme alive). Haven't seen it in years, and I forgot how excellent it is.
Last week, rewatched The Usual Suspects (to keep the KS theme alive). Haven't seen it in years, and I forgot how excellent it is.
Count Dookkake
Member
lol. Trying to think of a relevant image to make it work.
Max Armstrong
Member
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - It was okay. The ending was really not satisfying though and it just kept going and going and going. Loved the cinematography - 7.5/10
The Guard was pretty lame. I thought it would be a nice black comedy of sorts but falls short, the only real funny parts were told in the trailers. The plot was pretty blah as well. I'm rather unsure how it got a 95% RT
Deathly Hallows Part 2 : Was a good movie and a good ending imo to the harry potter movies.
Deathly Hallows Part 2 : Was a good movie and a good ending imo to the harry potter movies.
Admittedly, I'm six months out from the film, so I could be very wrong in all of this. But while there definitely aren't scenes showing Martha pre-cult and dissecting what made her want to join a cult, I certainly remember there being a lot of scenes showing her being lured into the lifestyle. To take it another step, I'd argue that not showing her pre-cult personality was intentional; it places the focus of the film firmly on how a cult works and its impact on anyone.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
And shoehorn an objective (that is really subjective) definition of what art is into about every fifth post. But everybody has their quirks.
Cosmic Bus
pristine morning snow
Which, let's be honest, is a lot more interesting to read than James Cameron [superlative]! Steven Spielberg [elative]!
Count Dookkake
Member
Which, let's be honest, is a lot more interesting to read than James Cameron [superlative]! Steven Spielberg [elative]!
Zing.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
OR IS IT?
Nappuccino
Member
it is a tough call
TheKaeptain
Banned
Which, let's be honest, is a lot more interesting to read than James Cameron [superlative]! Steven Spielberg [elative]!
It's like you guys are continuing mine and JackScofields conversation about Snowy and Sculli.
So, when I first watched this film, I unfortunately watched the Redux version. But last night I watched the regular version and...wow, I am shocked at how BIG the difference in quality between the two are. The Redux version was horrendous in comparison.
It's amazing that a masterfully shot film that is poorly edited can turn into a merely average film. From being an average war film, to probably the best war film I have seen. Fantastic film!
Tell you what, Francis Ford Coppola in the 70's was unstoppable. The Godfather I and II, The Conversation, and this. Amazing streak of films.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Link? Or is this in the infamous GAF chat?
Also, has anybody seen the movie O Lucky Man!? I loves me some Malcolm McDowell, but... 3 hours? How often does a movie REALLY justify being that long?
Edit: also, why JackScofield? He claims not to be a troll, but I'll be damned if he doesn't constantly get accused of being one.
Double Edit: Doubly also, I'm always surprised to learn of anybody speaking of me in my absence. Makes me paranoid, self-esteem issues and all that.
i mean he invited it. all those sound tricks. i mean if you say hey it took 50 years, but mcqueen nailed isn't that sad? though i think you are confusing emotion with the artistic talent, godard isn't trying to force you feel anything, and so how could he meet your defined view of art? it's not possible.
people want to read a book/watch a movie/play a game because they want to be entertained not because they want a good story. there's plenty of non narrative films, like michael snow's work or some of warhol's films and there's visuals as narrative as well, but the point with godard is that he tells his narrative through sound, visuals and the history of cinema. when the character in made in the u.s.a name is obscured by gunfire you know it's from vietnam or burt lancaster and exactly what her character means. it's not supposed to be mentally affecting, i mean why would it be? he's playing in a different playing field with different stakes.
anyway i really liked take shelter.
art is the new relgion and has been since WE said i'm not going to belive in god, but i'm going to believe in keats. i know i made that pledge a long time ago and never looked back. it's the basis for the foundation of the liberal arts and the development of the canon. though i mean i know that's not what you are getting at.
i don't think people are relating depth=narrative at all. and i agree that art is competitive, just this idea that the best art contains more narrative widgets seems horribly reductive.
can we ever know when anyone is away? you should join twitter already.
- Status