Red Mosquito

durdencommatyler wrote:

Dev wrote:Guys, the category is Ver Good.

Oh. Well it isn't that either.

Dude, I'm with you on Drive. I think you might have even nailed it.

Dev wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Dev wrote:Guys, the category is Ver Good.

Oh. Well it isn't that either.

Dude, I'm with you on Drive. I think you might have even nailed it.

Yeah, totally flat and uninspired.

Ugh. So awful.

Even that font choice for the title pisses me off.

Sorry pal, but this is one you and I will just never see eye to eye on. But we have all the others...

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Even that font choice for the title pisses me off.

It is a terrible font.

This may come across as stupid and rube-ish, but for me I think what bugged me was that he went out of his way to make the movie "edgy" and dark. I seem to even remember it being promoted that way. I don't know, I just didn't get it.

I absolutely adore Drive and Only God Forgives.

The images are flat as shit, man. I don't know what to tell you. The tones are empty. There's virtually no depth. I'm not saying his composition is bad, though sometimes he goes to unnecessary places. Many of the ones you picked above are totally uninspired. The ones that have any decent depth or compelling movement or storytelling in them are shots that are recycled and fairly trite. That rearview mirror shot is interesting, has depth and dimension but Christ, how many times have we seen that shot in a movie?

And how does he make a sprawling cityscape look like bad video game cutaway? There's no life or sense of space in that shot at all. It's just flat. I guess I get a good sense of heat and rut from it. I'll give him that.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:This may come across as stupid and rube-ish, but for me I think what bugged me was that he went out of his way to make the movie "edgy" and dark. I seem to even remember it being promoted that way. I don't know, I just didn't get it.

Don't be too hard on yourself, friend. You aren't a rube. He's clearly making choices, but those choices don't work for you. There's nothing to "get" or not get. You're not missing anything.

Except that Ryan Gosling is great in the movie. That you're missing.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:This may come across as stupid and rube-ish, but for me I think what bugged me was that he went out of his way to make the movie "edgy" and dark. I seem to even remember it being promoted that way. I don't know, I just didn't get it.

Hmm. I've always found it to be his sole warm film. Romantic, even. Sure, it's tempered by slick visuals and horror-inspired gore, but that's Refn.

durdencommatyler wrote:The images are flat as shit, man. I don't know what to tell you. The tones are empty. There's virtually no depth. I'm not saying his composition is bad, though sometimes he goes to unnecessary places. Many of the ones you picked above are totally uninspired. The ones that have any decent depth or compelling movement or storytelling in them are shots that are recycled and fairly trite. That rearview mirror shot is interesting, has depth and dimension but Christ, how many times have we seen that shot in a movie?

And how does he make a sprawling cityscape look like bad video game cutaway? There's no life or sense of space in that shot at all. It's just flat. I guess I get a good sense of heat and rut from it. I'll give him that.

I'll give you that the cinematography doesn't exactly have great depth of field, but that's generally to be expected when it comes to digital. I do think, however, Refn and Newton Segel display a strong sense of color and framing. The aesthetic is very precise and coherent. The images may not have "depth" visually but they ooze atmosphere and character. They create a headspace both stylistically and for the protagonist.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:The images are flat as shit, man. I don't know what to tell you. The tones are empty. There's virtually no depth. I'm not saying his composition is bad, though sometimes he goes to unnecessary places. Many of the ones you picked above are totally uninspired. The ones that have any decent depth or compelling movement or storytelling in them are shots that are recycled and fairly trite. That rearview mirror shot is interesting, has depth and dimension but Christ, how many times have we seen that shot in a movie?

And how does he make a sprawling cityscape look like bad video game cutaway? There's no life or sense of space in that shot at all. It's just flat. I guess I get a good sense of heat and rut from it. I'll give him that.

I'll give you that the cinematography doesn't exactly have great depth of field, but that's generally to be expected when it comes to digital. I do think, however, Refn and Newton Segel display a strong sense of color and framing. The aesthetic is very precise and coherent. The images may not have "depth" visually but they ooze atmosphere and character. They create a headspace both stylistically and for the protagonist.

I don't disagree about a strong sense of color and framing. I don't agree with all the framing choices and some of them pulled me right out of the movie, but there is definitely a strong sense for those elements, absolutely. The aesthetic might be precise but it's also off putting. The movie does ooze atmosphere, that's one of the things it absolutely has going for it.

I'm glad you agree with me about visual depth. And that's what I meant by flat images. I'd be willing to drop "uninspired" but I'd trade it out with static.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:The images are flat as shit, man. I don't know what to tell you. The tones are empty. There's virtually no depth. I'm not saying his composition is bad, though sometimes he goes to unnecessary places. Many of the ones you picked above are totally uninspired. The ones that have any decent depth or compelling movement or storytelling in them are shots that are recycled and fairly trite. That rearview mirror shot is interesting, has depth and dimension but Christ, how many times have we seen that shot in a movie?

And how does he make a sprawling cityscape look like bad video game cutaway? There's no life or sense of space in that shot at all. It's just flat. I guess I get a good sense of heat and rut from it. I'll give him that.

I'll give you that the cinematography doesn't exactly have great depth of field, but that's generally to be expected when it comes to digital. I do think, however, Refn and Newton Segel display a strong sense of color and framing. The aesthetic is very precise and coherent. The images may not have "depth" visually but they ooze atmosphere and character. They create a headspace both stylistically and for the protagonist.

I don't disagree about a strong sense of color and framing. I don't agree with all the framing choices and some of them pulled me right out of the movie, but there is definitely a strong sense for those elements, absolutely. The aesthetic might be precise but it's also off putting. The movie does ooze atmosphere, that's one of the things it absolutely has going for it.

I'm glad you agree with me about visual depth. And that's what I meant by flat images. I'd be willing to drop "uninspired" but I'd trade it out with static.

All right, I could see that. The movie actually does have a certain static nature to its images, which is something I like about it. It's very reserved, a bit distanced. Like its protagonist.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:The images are flat as shit, man. I don't know what to tell you. The tones are empty. There's virtually no depth. I'm not saying his composition is bad, though sometimes he goes to unnecessary places. Many of the ones you picked above are totally uninspired. The ones that have any decent depth or compelling movement or storytelling in them are shots that are recycled and fairly trite. That rearview mirror shot is interesting, has depth and dimension but Christ, how many times have we seen that shot in a movie?

And how does he make a sprawling cityscape look like bad video game cutaway? There's no life or sense of space in that shot at all. It's just flat. I guess I get a good sense of heat and rut from it. I'll give him that.

I'll give you that the cinematography doesn't exactly have great depth of field, but that's generally to be expected when it comes to digital. I do think, however, Refn and Newton Segel display a strong sense of color and framing. The aesthetic is very precise and coherent. The images may not have "depth" visually but they ooze atmosphere and character. They create a headspace both stylistically and for the protagonist.

I don't disagree about a strong sense of color and framing. I don't agree with all the framing choices and some of them pulled me right out of the movie, but there is definitely a strong sense for those elements, absolutely. The aesthetic might be precise but it's also off putting. The movie does ooze atmosphere, that's one of the things it absolutely has going for it.

I'm glad you agree with me about visual depth. And that's what I meant by flat images. I'd be willing to drop "uninspired" but I'd trade it out with static.

All right, I could see that. The movie actually does have a certain static nature to its images, which is something I like about it. It's very reserved, a bit distanced. Like its protagonist.

And that's a good point. If that was intentional, then I'll give him a ton of credit for the choice. Even if it doesn't quite work on me for the whole movie, it's an interesting choice and an appropriate filter through which to experience the movie. This is why I try to be generous and not too hard on the film. There are good things about it. I just largely missed. And I hate seeing talent underused.

there's no chance the neon demon is good.

Loved Drive, did not enjoy Only God Forgives. But I've liked his other stuff a lot so I'll check this one out in the theater.

Orpheus wrote:Loved Drive, did not enjoy Only God Forgives. But I've liked his other stuff a lot so I'll check this one out in the theater.

no one asked you.