Movies You've Seen Recently: Return of the Revenge of the Curse of the...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Flying_Phoenix said:
No Country for Old Men is very overrated.

Anyway finally watched this

220px-Black_Swan_poster.jpg


David once again shows that he's one of the best directors in the industry.
Don't really like his style.
Actually, i liked Black Swan, but the more i think about it, the more things i didn't like come to the light.
I think it's one that's not gonna stick with me.
 
HiResDes said:
There Will Be Blood > No Country For Old Men
The two best movies of the decade right here, imo.

UrbanRats said:
Don't really like his style.
Actually, i liked Black Swan, but the more i think about it, the more things i didn't like come to the light.
I think it's one that's not gonna stick with me.
I don't either, but I adore Black Swan.
 
I watched Mean Streets and my love/hate relation with Scorsese still stands. It felt amateuristic and improvised, while the story didn't go anywhere and I didn't care for the characters or their bullshit conversations/problems. The acting was very decent though. 5/10
 
MikeMyers said:
Speaking of Good Will Hunting, what does GAF think of To Die For? I loved it back in the day, haven't seen it in years.

It's my favourite Gus Van Sant movie with My Own Private Idaho. Kidman's performance is one of the best of the 90s; made me a fan.
 
good will hunting is one of my favorites. i wish robin williams would take on more serious parts. does anyone else think matt damon's cry in it sounds a lot like he's laughing? it kind of takes me out of that scene.
 
HiResDes said:
There Will Be Blood > No Country For Old Men

Yes, yes, and yes. I am very fond of No Country For Old Men (although it feels a bit like Fargo for Texans at times) but I think There Will Be Blood is an example of everything coming together perfectly. I can't find much fault with the film if I try. Although this will probably invalidate my opinion entirely, I would probably pick it as my all-time favorite film were I forced to choose. From the first frame to the last I'm always enraptured in the cinematography, writing, music, themes, and acting. It's just... great. It's a shame that so many less well-versed moviegoers have written it off as some neo-western and ignored it.


Anyway...
Warrior- I really loved that both brothers were treated sympathetically. Neither character was made into an antagonist which I really thought would happen at some point. Of course, it was easy to guess who would end up in the finals of that tournament from a mile away, but it didn't stop me from enjoying the ride. I also liked how their personalities were sort of reflected in their fighting styles. Tommy was this hot-headed brute in real life carrying around a lot of anger and vitriol and this showed in the way that he would just ravage his opponents (the first and second times that he pummels mad dog were so fun to watch that I actually started laughing) while Brendan (I think that was his name... it seemed to be mentioned much less frequently) relied more on his technical know-how and perseverance. The score was unmemorable. In fact I don't even remember if the film had one.

Tom Hardy's acting was great and a huge departure from what he did in Inception. The guy who looks like Conan O Brien was alright too. However, Nick Nolte's acting was really heart breaking at times. I had the chance to go to a Q&A of one of his films where he was in attendance (hence the Q&A, obviously) and his voice really has become broken and gravelly with age. Part of the effect his performance had on me was probably how easily I could see the real Nick Nolte in his character.

Overall, the movie wasn't anything that's going to go down in the history books but it wasn't trying to be, either. It was a very well-told sports film that, while maybe a bit tired of a plot, was engaging and evoked genuine investment in the plight of each character. 4/5
 
John Dunbar said:
It's my favourite Gus Van Sant movie with My Own Private Idaho. Kidman's performance is one of the best of the 90s; made me a fan.

Have you seen Elephant? It's the only Gus Van Sant movie that I've seen but I thought it was more or less perfect. Would I like his other films if I liked that? I can't imagine that he regularly takes the approach he did with that film, which is why I'm hesitant to jump into his other movies.
 
&Divius said:
I watched Mean Streets and my love/hate relation with Scorsese still stands. It felt amateuristic and improvised, while the story didn't go anywhere and I didn't care for the characters or their bullshit conversations/problems. The acting was very decent though. 5/10


That's why I love Mean Streets so much, it's incredibly raw. De Niro as Johnny Boy is one of my favourite performances.

Flying_Phoenix said:
No Country for Old Men is very overrated.

Anyway finally watched this

220px-Black_Swan_poster.jpg


David once again shows that he's one of the best directors in the industry.

I personally think he showed why he isn't one of the best directors in the industry with Black Swan. It was decent, but I just don't really like Aronofsky that much. I think it might be the moustache.

And I disagree that No Country For Old Men is overrated, I still think that it's a pretty perfect film.
 
EliCash said:
I personally think he showed why he isn't one of the best directors in the industry with Black Swan. It was decent, but I just don't really like Aronofsky that much. I think it might be the moustache.

And I disagree that No Country For Old Men is overrated, I still think that it's a pretty perfect film.
Subtlety has never been Aronofsky's strong suit (if he has such a suit in the first place!), which you'd think would suit a concept like Black Swan, but the film plays like a poor man's Repulsion. I don't actively hate the film like Requiem for a Dream, so I guess he's got that going for it.
 
senna.jpg


Of all the great things I could say about this doc, I just want to say the editing during the
funeral
was fucking amazing; I loved the intercutting between the present and all the brief flashbacks.

Great film, one of my favorites of the year.
 
&Divius said:
I watched Mean Streets and my love/hate relation with Scorsese still stands. It felt amateuristic and improvised, while the story didn't go anywhere and I didn't care for the characters or their bullshit conversations/problems. The acting was very decent though. 5/10

Dude, the rawness is a big aspect of what makes the film work. If you can watch that conversation between de Niro and Keitel where de Niro tells Keitel why he's broke and tell me that that's not great acting and characterization, well, we don't have much to discuss.
 
A movie recommendation engine I use wouldn't shut up about The Machinist, so I watched that.

And holy heck that movie. It's like somebody wired up my head to a computer and read the "Good movie" page on my brainipedia and tried to make a movie based on that. It was scary how many things it did right. I'm definitely going back for more recommendations.
 
John Dunbar said:
It's my favourite Gus Van Sant movie with My Own Private Idaho. Kidman's performance is one of the best of the 90s; made me a fan.

Funny, I'm planning on watching My Own Private Idaho tonight.
 
Ventilaator said:
A movie recommendation engine I use wouldn't shut up about The Machinist, so I watched that.

And holy heck that movie. It's like somebody wired up my head to a computer and read the "Good movie" page on my brainipedia and tried to make a movie based on that. It was scary how many things it did right. I'm definitely going back for more recommendations.

It is really good indeed, if not for a bit "nine inch nails" heavy. Bale really shines in this one.

Watched Bridesmaids. It's a pretty decent comedy, but I thought it was really long (2h 10m). There were definitely several scenes that I thought dragged out WAY too long, like the engagement party speech. Also the Apatow-humor stuff from the first third of the film really tapered off in the last 2/3, little moments here and there, but it started turning into more of a "chick" movie than I expected (because everyone said how much it's not a chick movie).
It definitely had it's moments though, and was better than I was expecting.
 
&Divius said:
I watched Mean Streets and my love/hate relation with Scorsese still stands. It felt amateuristic and improvised, while the story didn't go anywhere and I didn't care for the characters or their bullshit conversations/problems. The acting was very decent though. 5/10

I didn't see Mean Streets but I agree you on the love/hate relation. IMO, he is hit and miss.
 
Jme said:
It is really good indeed, if not for a bit "nine inch nails" heavy. Bale really shines in this one.

Watched Bridesmaids. It's a pretty decent comedy, but I thought it was really long (2h 10m). There were definitely several scenes that I thought dragged out WAY too long, like the engagement party speech. Also the Apatow-humor stuff from the first third of the film really tapered off in the last 2/3, little moments here and there, but it started turning into more of a "chick" movie than I expected (because everyone said how much it's not a chick movie).
It definitely had it's moments though, and was better than I was expecting.

how I felt. Also got some good laughs from the main girls penis impersonation as well as the car scene to attract the policemans attention.
 
Blader5489 said:
MV5BMTc5MTUzOTAxMl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODQzMjg3NA@@._V1._SY317_.jpg


Of all the great things I could say about this doc, I just want to say the editing during the
funeral
was fucking amazing; I loved the intercutting between the present and all the brief flashbacks.

Great film, one of my favorites of the year.
I'm guessing you're talking about Senna (the image doesn't allow embedding) and I agree.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Dude, the rawness is a big aspect of what makes the film work. If you can watch that conversation between de Niro and Keitel where de Niro tells Keitel why he's broke and tell me that that's not great acting and characterization, well, we don't have much to discuss.

Sometimes I feel like rawness is what is missing in Hollywood.
 
Blader5489 said:
senna.jpg


Of all the great things I could say about this doc, I just want to say the editing during the
funeral
was fucking amazing; I loved the intercutting between the present and all the brief flashbacks.

Great film, one of my favorites of the year.

i haven't seen it yet, but i'm sure you'll love this, too: top gear's tribute to senna.
 
just saw the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie. Did not like it very much tbh. The mermaid sub-plot felt unnecessary and Blackbeard's character wasn't explored enough.


Also, don't really like how so many people die all the time, yet they try to have this humorous atmosphere along with it. Such things just feel repulsive to me.
 
Holy mountain - I came in this expecting something rather inaccessible or unwatchable in a sense, but came back very entertained by the whole thing, because for one, there is literally a interesting piece of imagery or a darkly comedic moment every minute during the duration of the film, and there wasn't a single minute where i was bored as a result, I don't think i really understood or comprehended what the film was trying to say exactly, but i enjoyed the experience regardless!

Rear window - Solid film i guess, kept me on the edge of my seat from start to finish with great sense of tension throughout the duration, but for some reason i felt kind of empty finishing the film afterwards. It's probably my second favorite hitchcock behind Psycho at least though.

Vertigo - Man I'm kind of dissapointed in this, the themes of obsession seem like something I'd connect to right away, but for some reason i couldn't seem to get into this as much as i should have, despite being very well-shot with some occasional moments of pure beauty with incredible atmosphere, definitely something i plan on re-watching sometime in the future, to see if I'd get into it more, but it's interesting that from the three "highly acclaimed" hitchcock films I've seen (psycho, rear window, vertigo) i haven't really enjoyed them beyond the fact that i appreciate how well-done and executed they are as films, I'd haft to agree with snowman who expressed a similar sentiment earlier in the thread, but so far I'd say Les Diaboliques is better than anything I've seen by hitchcock, and i personally enjoyed it a lot more to, despite being very similar in terms of style.
 
icarus-daedelus said:
Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom

It's silly, unbearably pretentious, and ultimately, honestly kind of boring. It's about as disturbing as a gross-out comedy featuring a lot of poop jokes tbh, but sadly far less engaging than the same; there's no display of empathy whatsoever (this may be some kind of bad commentary on voyeurism, yawn) due to equally bad writing and acting and a general disinterest in humanity (ironically?) with great pretense of carrying Important Messages. (The majority of the dialogue consists of a few old women, presumed to have suffered a similar fate at one time but now having been Stockholm Syndrome'd into fascist piggery, sharing tales in the vein of how, as children, they shat upon carpets in front of perverted old men who then tore their clothes off, threw them in fire, then ejaculated on the ashen remains. This is like 90% of the movie. Zzzz.) As alleged political allegory - which is the only possible way to take it, as the premise is ridiculous and the characters one dimensional caricatures at best, ciphers at worst - it's juvenile and sophomoric and, honestly, has no real insight into the whys or hows of WWII-era European fascism. It is not, in fact, very similar at all to being complacently fucked up the ass and fed shit (whoops, spoilers!) by old Italian perverts, no matter how many times this film wants to draw that silly comparison.

I can't figure why something like this is so enduringly beloved and feted by the arthouse crowd whereas something dealing with actually disturbing subject matter in a serious treatment such as, say, In A Glass Cage, deeply flawed as it may be but vastly superior in every measure to this silly nonsense, languishes in obscurity. Eh, whatever. FU Criterion.

Do you use Criticker or I Check Movies?
 
icarus-daedelus said:
As alleged political allegory - which is the only possible way to take it, as the premise is ridiculous and the characters one dimensional caricatures at best, ciphers at worst - it's juvenile and sophomoric and, honestly, has no real insight into the whys or hows of WWII-era European fascism.
Ah, forgot to say: i' have to see it, but i've read a few pieces about it in the past, and AFAIk, it's not meant to be about WWII-era fascism, but about '70s consumism and the anarchy of power, transforming people in objects (sorry, going by memory, something on that effect) comparing THAT to the more visible and physical abuse of facism.
But don't take my word for it.

..with this film Pasolini faces the modern world in a new light, compared to past experiences; there is here, a dramatic awareness of the horror and anarchy of power, that he refuses to approach in a realistic way to escape in a metaphoric rappresentation. The metaphor, therefore, represent the device through which the poet-director express the horrors perpetrated by power to the human body: "the tranformation of a man into an obcject[a thing], the nullification of personality". Nothing, by the pasolinian point of view, than power arbitrarily driven by pure economic needs, that eludes the common feeling.
"It's a power that maniulates bodies in a horrible way and that has nothing less than the manipulation perpetrated by Hitler: It manipulates them transforming consciousness, so in the worst way possible; establishing new alienating and false values, that are the values of consumption; it happens what Marx described as: The genocyde of the living, real, past cultures". [Pier Paolo Pasolini]
The power, in and out of itself, is a ritual codifier; the repetition of the sodomitic act represent, for its mechanicalness,the paradigm that sums up this terrifying imposition of neocapitalism.
For the executioner, therefore, the problem is the repetition of the act in relation to death, that brings him to search not for one, but a hundred victims, because he could not otherwise repeat himself losing his power. But in the film there's another solution, to fake the murder of the victim, while not killing it at all: the return to lfe would become a perverse variation, being the death's ritual consumed anyway".
Salò's executioners, through the manipulation of the bodies acquire the power of Gods on Earth, so God is always their model.
Sorry for the quick translation from Italian, took me a while.
 
icarus-daedelus said:
Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom

It's silly, unbearably pretentious, and ultimately, honestly kind of boring. It's about as disturbing as a gross-out comedy featuring a lot of poop jokes tbh, but sadly far less engaging than the same; there's no display of empathy whatsoever (this may be some kind of bad commentary on voyeurism, yawn) due to equally bad writing and acting and a general disinterest in humanity (ironically?) with great pretense of carrying Important Messages. (The majority of the dialogue consists of a few old women, presumed to have suffered a similar fate at one time but now having been Stockholm Syndrome'd into fascist piggery, sharing tales in the vein of how, as children, they shat upon carpets in front of perverted old men who then tore their clothes off, threw them in fire, then ejaculated on the ashen remains. This is like 90% of the movie. Zzzz.) As alleged political allegory - which is the only possible way to take it, as the premise is ridiculous and the characters one dimensional caricatures at best, ciphers at worst - it's juvenile and sophomoric and, honestly, has no real insight into the whys or hows of WWII-era European fascism. It is not, in fact, very similar at all to being complacently fucked up the ass and fed shit (whoops, spoilers!) by old Italian perverts, no matter how many times this film wants to draw that silly comparison.

I can't figure why something like this is so enduringly beloved and feted by the arthouse crowd whereas something dealing with actually disturbing subject matter in a serious treatment such as, say, In A Glass Cage, deeply flawed as it may be but vastly superior in every measure to this silly nonsense, languishes in obscurity. Eh, whatever. FU Criterion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE
 
AlternativeUlster said:

Please, explain to me the deep and intricate nature of Salo and explain why Icarus's engagement with the work of art displays a shallow understanding of the work. I'm dying to hear how the movie - which is adapted from a TERRIBLE book by an abysmal writer - is something that he just missed the point of. Go ahead.

Edit: Seriously, read this - http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/120Days/00000010.htm - and tell me that there's anything of value there, in any medium.
 
Misanthropy said:
Sadism is a very important part of (something) because it teaches us why we inherently oppose such ideas.Or at least it questions why we do.

What? I mean, it's a terrible book and story, is all I'm saying. Even the prose is simply execrable due to how boring and repetitive it is. I really don't care how historically important something may or may not have been if it's artistically as shit as its content.
 
It's a very important piece of work though. Hell the guy introduced the whole concept of libertines (not libertarianism) and his name is in the damn word itself. I'm not saying Sadism is good and most people around the world would say sadism is bad but all I'm saying is that it's important and without it we are missing a part of artistic and creative freedom. I know the writing and everything is horrible but it still stands on its own as a unique and contributory work of literature.
 
Misanthropy said:
It's a very important piece of work though. Hell the guy introduced the whole concept of libertines (not libertarianism) and his name is in the damn word itself. I'm not saying Sadism is good and most people around the world would say sadism is bad but all I'm saying is that it's important and without it we are missing a part of artistic and creative freedom. I know the writing and everything is horrible but it still stands on its own as a unique and contributory work of literature.

We're "missing a part of artistic and creative freedom" without 120 Days of Sodom? Really? You're going to have to qualify that for me, as it strikes me as ridiculous on its face; we had great art before it, and great art since has learned how to actually use violence and shock in service of something artistic, rather than for its own sake. What is unique about it? It's literally a laundry list of fetishistic behavior and torture with no style nor substance to it, and pretty much any random work of exploitation is every bits its equal (and likely its superior, since most exploitation films are short and un-pretentious).

Edit: And had it not been Sade, it probably would have been somebody else. Being the first of something doesn't mean that you were any good at it.
 
I'm alluding to the saying you don't know where the line is until you've drawn it. Well De Sade pissed all over that line and and made a 6 year old child sex slave rub her coochikoo all over it. The biggest thing to get off of Sade's work is that it shows artists how much freedom they have to do what they want and that no one can tell them what they can't do. He stood up for every artist who wanted to say something, despite how bad, and say it freely. Now, maybe he didn't do this intentionally but this is what his work has done for artists after him. As long as they didn't do something as nasty as De Sade, and he set a pretty high bar, then their work wouldn't be considered horribly violent. I know that it's not that good of a use of violence but he did that on purpose to show artists that they are able to do what they want because they are free when they are creating art. Does that make sense? Kind of like when Kubrick couldn't do child sex scenes in Lolita and could only do innuendos and then in ACO he goes all out and basically tells the censorship committee to go fuck itself. Now Kubrick does it very well and there is a reason for that but De Sades reason for the nonsensical sadism is to "let" people after him to be allowed to do someone even half as violent as that and not be hung by the media. Same as when after ACO more nudity was allowed in general and wasn't given an X rating anymore.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Please, explain to me the deep and intricate nature of Salo and explain why Icarus's engagement with the work of art displays a shallow understanding of the work. I'm dying to hear how the movie - which is adapted from a TERRIBLE book by an abysmal writer - is something that he just missed the point of. Go ahead.

In simplest terms, the film is rooted in evil, its face is evil, everything that happens in the film is evil, the people getting tortured are nameless, and in the end 2 soldiers dance together while all of the people are massacred in the background. The film is a desensitization of a nation with it out doing horror from any horror film without the camera being in a frenzy and using silly film tactics to scare you.

I hate that argument that if it wasn't this person, then it would have been this other person. How many years would we be set back? What if Martin Luther King Jr. didn't do anything and just opened up a candy apple stand? What then Snowman?
 
Poster2.jpg


Despite what Netflix told me, this isn't so much of a traditional giallo (though it does inherit some key elements) as much as it's a psychological horror in the same vein as Repulsion or Rosemary's Baby. It's starts a bit too slow for my liking, but once it settles into its dreamlike groove, it's a captivating experience, thanks to a beautiful visual sense in both the camera movement and the compositions of the shots themselves (made more remarkable that this is the director's first film at the helm, if I'm reading it correctly). The lead actress does an admirable job skirting the very thin line between reality and hysteria in a convincing manner, and when madness finally takes hold, she certainly takes full advantage of disregarding her previous restraint. The film never seems to be too terribly concerned with the destination (which can certainly frustrate some as several explanations are initiated by the film itself with almost no closure), but that's rarely ever been an issue for me.

But then the ending happens and words fail me at this point, so a gif must suffice:

What-dog-animated-gif.gif


It's the rare ending in that something so completely unexpected and unprecedented occurs that you're not sure if it ruins everything that came before it or makes it even better. I can appreciate balls the size of asteroids, so I certainly recommend this film.
 
Meliorism: Fair enough, but I'd need to see some historical proof that de Sade's work had that much influence; as far as I've ever been able to tell, it was pretty much something made just to shock that didn't have much influence since it was lost for quite a while. Indeed, it wasn't even available in much of the world until the latter part of the twentieth century. I don't deny that it's possible that the work was more influential than I'm giving it credit for, but I think things like the violence in A Clockwork Orange came more from general cultural evolution toward laxer standards of censorship than any kind of response, direct or indirect, to de Sade's work.

AlternativeUlster said:
In simplest terms, the film is rooted in evil, its face is evil, everything that happens in the film is evil, the people getting tortured are nameless, and in the end 2 soldiers dance together while all of the people are massacred in the background. The film is a desensitization of a nation with it out doing horror from any horror film without the camera being in a frenzy and using silly film tactics to scare you.

I mean, Icarus's original post says that the film is poorly-written and poorly-acted, boring, and that the violence isn't even all that well-done, not to mention that a comparison between fascism and sexual torture/slavery is a pretty silly one on its face. Your original response is that he displays a shallow understanding of the original work, yet his original post is far more in-depth and more engaged with the work in question than your response to him. I mean, your post is basically his post restated in terms to make the original work seem effective, yet you don't really refute any of the actual nuts-n-bolts points that he made in the first place. If anything, you come off as the one arguing more superficially, at least in this instance.

I hate that argument that if it wasn't this person, then it would have been this other person. How many years would we be set back? What if Martin Luther King Jr. didn't do anything and just opened up a candy apple stand? What then Snowman?

Kind of a false equivalency to compare a monumental civil rights leader with the guy that sadism is named after, but you do make a fair enough point. That doesn't make the original book any better, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom