Red Mosquito

VinylGuy wrote:Trespass.

WTF was that? how can this thing got made? and with the talents of Cage, Kidman and Mendelson involved?

Rangi Guy wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:Trespass.

WTF was that? how can this thing got made? and with the talents of Cage, Kidman and Mendelson involved?

Nic Cage? You should have known better!

dimejinky99 wrote:The Big Sick was good.

Monkey_Driven wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:The Big Sick was good.

My wife and I enjoyed it too. Formulaic, but good.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Going to Lady Bird today.

Ugh. UGH. Hated, hated, hated this. If there's any kind of movie I hoped would never make a comeback, it's the mid-2000s quirky indie comedy. It's like opposite pole of Boyhood, but equally bad: while that movie slowly moved from insignificant event to insignificant event, purposely skipping the seminal experiences of a young person's life in a misguided attempt at originality, this movie careens from greatest-hits-coming-of-age-experience to greatest-hits-coming-of-age-experience in scenes that seem to last about 10 seconds each, allowing no time for absorption or reflection. Its aesthetic is flat, lifeless, and thoroughly contemporary, leaving me baffled as to how anyone could think this effectively evokes a Y2K-era atmosphere (which I have heard multiple people mention). Nothing about this movie works in any way. Just terrible, terrible filmmaking. Does anyone remember how movies function at all anymore? So many new directors can't even seem to achieve a baseline of competence these days.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Going to Lady Bird today.

Ugh. UGH. Hated, hated, hated this. If there's any kind of movie I hoped would never make a comeback, it's the mid-2000s quirky indie comedy. It's like opposite pole of Boyhood, but equally bad: while that movie slowly moved from insignificant event to insignificant event, purposely skipping the seminal experiences of a young person's life in a misguided attempt at originality, this movie careens from greatest-hits-coming-of-age-experience to greatest-hits-coming-of-age-experience in scenes that seem to last about 10 seconds each, allowing no time for absorption or reflection. Its aesthetic is flat, lifeless, and thoroughly contemporary, leaving me baffled as to how anyone could think this effectively evokes a Y2K-era atmosphere (which I have heard multiple people mention). Nothing about this movie works in any way. Just terrible, terrible filmmaking. Does anyone remember how movies function at all anymore? So many new directors can't even seem to achieve a baseline of competence these days.

durdencommatyler wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:The Big Sick was good.

My wife and I enjoyed it too. Formulaic, but good.

I was a little underwhelmed by it, truth be told. But I still enjoyed it for what it was. Romano and Hunter were both outstanding and made the movie for me.

bune wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Going to Lady Bird today.

Ugh. UGH. Hated, hated, hated this. If there's any kind of movie I hoped would never make a comeback, it's the mid-2000s quirky indie comedy. It's like opposite pole of Boyhood, but equally bad: while that movie slowly moved from insignificant event to insignificant event, purposely skipping the seminal experiences of a young person's life in a misguided attempt at originality, this movie careens from greatest-hits-coming-of-age-experience to greatest-hits-coming-of-age-experience in scenes that seem to last about 10 seconds each, allowing no time for absorption or reflection. Its aesthetic is flat, lifeless, and thoroughly contemporary, leaving me baffled as to how anyone could think this effectively evokes a Y2K-era atmosphere (which I have heard multiple people mention). Nothing about this movie works in any way. Just terrible, terrible filmmaking. Does anyone remember how movies function at all anymore? So many new directors can't even seem to achieve a baseline of competence these days.

We watched the original Clash of the Titans this weekend and it was a good example of what you talk about with people not knowing how to make a movie. It's just lots of close-ups and push-ins and then push in again and edit and push in again. Man, directing and cinematography are arts and it's hard to get right.

VinylGuy wrote:I havent seen the film, and i actually looking forward to it but im guessing Greta Gerwig´s nomination has more with the fact that she is a woman, and everyone complaint about the lack of women nominated, than with her real talent based on that movie.

Well see.

durdencommatyler wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:I havent seen the film, and i actually looking forward to it but im guessing Greta Gerwig´s nomination has more with the fact that she is a woman, and everyone complaint about the lack of women nominated, than with her real talent based on that movie.

Well see.

You're selling her short. If gender is the only thing the Academy was concerned about, then why not nominate Patty Jenkins?

VinylGuy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:I havent seen the film, and i actually looking forward to it but im guessing Greta Gerwig´s nomination has more with the fact that she is a woman, and everyone complaint about the lack of women nominated, than with her real talent based on that movie.

Well see.

You're selling her short. If gender is the only thing the Academy was concerned about, then why not nominate Patty Jenkins?

It was surprise not to see her there too. But im dont think im making a mistake with Greta´s nomination regardless if she deserves it.

durdencommatyler wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:I havent seen the film, and i actually looking forward to it but im guessing Greta Gerwig´s nomination has more with the fact that she is a woman, and everyone complaint about the lack of women nominated, than with her real talent based on that movie.

Well see.

You're selling her short. If gender is the only thing the Academy was concerned about, then why not nominate Patty Jenkins?

It was surprise not to see her there too. But im dont think im making a mistake with Greta´s nomination regardless if she deserves it.

Well, of course you don't.

VinylGuy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:I havent seen the film, and i actually looking forward to it but im guessing Greta Gerwig´s nomination has more with the fact that she is a woman, and everyone complaint about the lack of women nominated, than with her real talent based on that movie.

Well see.

You're selling her short. If gender is the only thing the Academy was concerned about, then why not nominate Patty Jenkins?

It was surprise not to see her there too. But im dont think im making a mistake with Greta´s nomination regardless if she deserves it.

Well, of course you don't.

I looking forward to see the movie though.

durdencommatyler wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:I havent seen the film, and i actually looking forward to it but im guessing Greta Gerwig´s nomination has more with the fact that she is a woman, and everyone complaint about the lack of women nominated, than with her real talent based on that movie.

Well see.

You're selling her short. If gender is the only thing the Academy was concerned about, then why not nominate Patty Jenkins?

It was surprise not to see her there too. But im dont think im making a mistake with Greta´s nomination regardless if she deserves it.

Well, of course you don't.

I looking forward to see the movie though.

I hope you enjoy it.

bune wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Going to Lady Bird today.

Ugh. UGH. Hated, hated, hated this. If there's any kind of movie I hoped would never make a comeback, it's the mid-2000s quirky indie comedy. It's like opposite pole of Boyhood, but equally bad: while that movie slowly moved from insignificant event to insignificant event, purposely skipping the seminal experiences of a young person's life in a misguided attempt at originality, this movie careens from greatest-hits-coming-of-age-experience to greatest-hits-coming-of-age-experience in scenes that seem to last about 10 seconds each, allowing no time for absorption or reflection. Its aesthetic is flat, lifeless, and thoroughly contemporary, leaving me baffled as to how anyone could think this effectively evokes a Y2K-era atmosphere (which I have heard multiple people mention). Nothing about this movie works in any way. Just terrible, terrible filmmaking. Does anyone remember how movies function at all anymore? So many new directors can't even seem to achieve a baseline of competence these days.

We watched the original Clash of the Titans this weekend and it was a good example of what you talk about with people not knowing how to make a movie. It's just lots of close-ups and push-ins and then push in again and edit and push in again. Man, directing and cinematography are arts and it's hard to get right.

bada wrote:

bune wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Going to Lady Bird today.

Ugh. UGH. Hated, hated, hated this. If there's any kind of movie I hoped would never make a comeback, it's the mid-2000s quirky indie comedy. It's like opposite pole of Boyhood, but equally bad: while that movie slowly moved from insignificant event to insignificant event, purposely skipping the seminal experiences of a young person's life in a misguided attempt at originality, this movie careens from greatest-hits-coming-of-age-experience to greatest-hits-coming-of-age-experience in scenes that seem to last about 10 seconds each, allowing no time for absorption or reflection. Its aesthetic is flat, lifeless, and thoroughly contemporary, leaving me baffled as to how anyone could think this effectively evokes a Y2K-era atmosphere (which I have heard multiple people mention). Nothing about this movie works in any way. Just terrible, terrible filmmaking. Does anyone remember how movies function at all anymore? So many new directors can't even seem to achieve a baseline of competence these days.

We watched the original Clash of the Titans this weekend and it was a good example of what you talk about with people not knowing how to make a movie. It's just lots of close-ups and push-ins and then push in again and edit and push in again. Man, directing and cinematography are arts and it's hard to get right.

Hold on....did you just slag off Clash Of The Titans?

durdencommatyler wrote:

bada wrote:

bune wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Going to Lady Bird today.

Ugh. UGH. Hated, hated, hated this. If there's any kind of movie I hoped would never make a comeback, it's the mid-2000s quirky indie comedy. It's like opposite pole of Boyhood, but equally bad: while that movie slowly moved from insignificant event to insignificant event, purposely skipping the seminal experiences of a young person's life in a misguided attempt at originality, this movie careens from greatest-hits-coming-of-age-experience to greatest-hits-coming-of-age-experience in scenes that seem to last about 10 seconds each, allowing no time for absorption or reflection. Its aesthetic is flat, lifeless, and thoroughly contemporary, leaving me baffled as to how anyone could think this effectively evokes a Y2K-era atmosphere (which I have heard multiple people mention). Nothing about this movie works in any way. Just terrible, terrible filmmaking. Does anyone remember how movies function at all anymore? So many new directors can't even seem to achieve a baseline of competence these days.

We watched the original Clash of the Titans this weekend and it was a good example of what you talk about with people not knowing how to make a movie. It's just lots of close-ups and push-ins and then push in again and edit and push in again. Man, directing and cinematography are arts and it's hard to get right.

Hold on....did you just slag off Clash Of The Titans?

GET HIM

Spoiler: show

bada wrote:

bune wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Going to Lady Bird today.

Ugh. UGH. Hated, hated, hated this. If there's any kind of movie I hoped would never make a comeback, it's the mid-2000s quirky indie comedy. It's like opposite pole of Boyhood, but equally bad: while that movie slowly moved from insignificant event to insignificant event, purposely skipping the seminal experiences of a young person's life in a misguided attempt at originality, this movie careens from greatest-hits-coming-of-age-experience to greatest-hits-coming-of-age-experience in scenes that seem to last about 10 seconds each, allowing no time for absorption or reflection. Its aesthetic is flat, lifeless, and thoroughly contemporary, leaving me baffled as to how anyone could think this effectively evokes a Y2K-era atmosphere (which I have heard multiple people mention). Nothing about this movie works in any way. Just terrible, terrible filmmaking. Does anyone remember how movies function at all anymore? So many new directors can't even seem to achieve a baseline of competence these days.

We watched the original Clash of the Titans this weekend and it was a good example of what you talk about with people not knowing how to make a movie. It's just lots of close-ups and push-ins and then push in again and edit and push in again. Man, directing and cinematography are arts and it's hard to get right.

Hold on....did you just slag off Clash Of The Titans?

bada wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

bada wrote:

bune wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Going to Lady Bird today.

Ugh. UGH. Hated, hated, hated this. If there's any kind of movie I hoped would never make a comeback, it's the mid-2000s quirky indie comedy. It's like opposite pole of Boyhood, but equally bad: while that movie slowly moved from insignificant event to insignificant event, purposely skipping the seminal experiences of a young person's life in a misguided attempt at originality, this movie careens from greatest-hits-coming-of-age-experience to greatest-hits-coming-of-age-experience in scenes that seem to last about 10 seconds each, allowing no time for absorption or reflection. Its aesthetic is flat, lifeless, and thoroughly contemporary, leaving me baffled as to how anyone could think this effectively evokes a Y2K-era atmosphere (which I have heard multiple people mention). Nothing about this movie works in any way. Just terrible, terrible filmmaking. Does anyone remember how movies function at all anymore? So many new directors can't even seem to achieve a baseline of competence these days.

We watched the original Clash of the Titans this weekend and it was a good example of what you talk about with people not knowing how to make a movie. It's just lots of close-ups and push-ins and then push in again and edit and push in again. Man, directing and cinematography are arts and it's hard to get right.

Hold on....did you just slag off Clash Of The Titans?

GET HIM

OK only Bune click on this.

Spoiler: show