Re: What movies are you watching?
Posted: Wed March 09, 2016 2:51 pm
rah!ug applselau! on lait ontiacSimple Torture wrote:LV, your rebuttal?david80 wrote:ďalej len " Equilibrium " je jeden z mojich najobľúbenejších
rah!ug applselau! on lait ontiacSimple Torture wrote:LV, your rebuttal?david80 wrote:ďalej len " Equilibrium " je jeden z mojich najobľúbenejších
Can't you just fucking enjoy something for what it is without being so critical?LoathedVermin72 wrote:rah!ug applselau! on lait ontiacSimple Torture wrote:LV, your rebuttal?david80 wrote:ďalej len " Equilibrium " je jeden z mojich najobľúbenejších
No, I must lash out whenever I see happinessSimple Torture wrote:Can't you just fucking enjoy something for what it is without being so critical?LoathedVermin72 wrote:rah!ug applselau! on lait ontiacSimple Torture wrote:LV, your rebuttal?david80 wrote:ďalej len " Equilibrium " je jeden z mojich najobľúbenejších
It's pretty pompous to tell people when they should feel najobľúbenejších.LoathedVermin72 wrote:No, I must lash out whenever I see happinessSimple Torture wrote:Can't you just fucking enjoy something for what it is without being so critical?LoathedVermin72 wrote:rah!ug applselau! on lait ontiacSimple Torture wrote:LV, your rebuttal?david80 wrote:ďalej len " Equilibrium " je jeden z mojich najobľúbenejších
best movie of the year?BurtReynolds wrote:yeah no surprise, it was a pretty cool movie.BurtReynolds wrote:looks good. Can't waitLoathedVermin72 wrote:The Witch. Ugh. Sucked. So sick of all this dull "art horror" bullshit.
YeahLoathedVermin72 wrote:Jesus, Everest was fucking harrowing. Man alive.
love that movieb_i_revisited wrote:Watched "Children of Men" again. Still great, and more relevant today than it was when it was released.
Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
Ha, the ending is the best part, QT has no eye for scenery, and the dialogue is pretty questionable.tragabigzanda wrote:I say nay. It's beautifully shot and the dialogue is really good (and the first 3/5 of the film are all dialogue), but the ending is completely gratuitous. This is not a "western" so much as it is a Reservoir Dogs re-hash in a cabin, but minus the heart of Reservoir Dogs.ABNorman wrote:Trying to force myself to watch the Hateful Eight. I hate Tarantino, but love westerns. Yay or nay?
Two against is enough to convince me. Thanks, team.LoathedVermin72 wrote:Ha, the ending is the best part, QT has no eye for scenery, and the dialogue is pretty questionable.tragabigzanda wrote:I say nay. It's beautifully shot and the dialogue is really good (and the first 3/5 of the film are all dialogue), but the ending is completely gratuitous. This is not a "western" so much as it is a Reservoir Dogs re-hash in a cabin, but minus the heart of Reservoir Dogs.ABNorman wrote:Trying to force myself to watch the Hateful Eight. I hate Tarantino, but love westerns. Yay or nay?
But I wouldn't suggest subjecting yourself to it if you hate QT.
Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
I mean, it certainly wasn't ugly. But you'd have to be a complete imbecile to go to a pretty location and shoot in Super 70 and make something that didn't look at least mildly compelling. But if you compare the cinematography and shot selection in it to what David Lean accomplished with the format, QT is totally out of his depth. The setting and equipment are there, QT just doesn't have the sensibility.tragabigzanda wrote:I won't try to argue the ending or the dialogue -- those things are pretty clearly subjective. But I'm surprised you think he has no eye for scenery. I thought the mountain shots were great, and I loved the shot of JJL catching snowflakes on her tongue with a banged up face. And the Haberdashery was really well staged, with good blocking. It felt like a vital part of the film.LoathedVermin72 wrote:Ha, the ending is the best part, QT has no eye for scenery, and the dialogue is pretty questionable.tragabigzanda wrote:I say nay. It's beautifully shot and the dialogue is really good (and the first 3/5 of the film are all dialogue), but the ending is completely gratuitous. This is not a "western" so much as it is a Reservoir Dogs re-hash in a cabin, but minus the heart of Reservoir Dogs.ABNorman wrote:Trying to force myself to watch the Hateful Eight. I hate Tarantino, but love westerns. Yay or nay?
But I wouldn't suggest subjecting yourself to it if you hate QT.
Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
It's one of my favorites.E.H. Ruddock wrote:love that movieb_i_revisited wrote:Watched "Children of Men" again. Still great, and more relevant today than it was when it was released.
The more I think about the visual choices in this movie, the less sense they make. Why did he shoot in such a grand format? What was the point? Nature can be used to do a lot of things in film - to glorify (or even apotheosize) the world or the human condition, or, conversely, to emphasize the absurdity of the human condition (or behavior or failings) - but QT doesn't seem to be doing...anything with it, really? He certainly isn't glorifying anything, and he enjoys wallowing in the muck of sadistic humor too much to be making an existential point about mankind's place in the world. It just seems like a case of "This is how it looked in my head, so I did it." Which is fine, but ultimately quite shallow. And, this being QT, I'm sure format nostalgia is at play, but even that feels ignorant when QT seems to have no real understanding of how or why better filmmakers of yesteryear used the format in the first place.tragabigzanda wrote:I don't even know who David Lean is, so you've got a more informed frame of reference here, I think. But I will say that the mountains look like they were shot in my back yard here in MT, and both myself and my buddy thought he captured the expansiveness and beauty really well. There's a TON of mountain footage that I see from around here that is poorly shot -- just 'coz the mountains are in the frame doesn't mean I feel their grandiosity. So I guess that's why I was impressed with that aspect.LoathedVermin72 wrote:I mean, it certainly wasn't ugly. But you'd have to be a complete imbecile to go to a pretty location and shoot in Super 70 and make something that didn't look at least mildly compelling. But if you compare the cinematography and shot selection in it to what David Lean accomplished with the format, QT is totally out of his depth. The setting and equipment are there, QT just doesn't have the sensibility.tragabigzanda wrote:I won't try to argue the ending or the dialogue -- those things are pretty clearly subjective. But I'm surprised you think he has no eye for scenery. I thought the mountain shots were great, and I loved the shot of JJL catching snowflakes on her tongue with a banged up face. And the Haberdashery was really well staged, with good blocking. It felt like a vital part of the film.LoathedVermin72 wrote:Ha, the ending is the best part, QT has no eye for scenery, and the dialogue is pretty questionable.tragabigzanda wrote:I say nay. It's beautifully shot and the dialogue is really good (and the first 3/5 of the film are all dialogue), but the ending is completely gratuitous. This is not a "western" so much as it is a Reservoir Dogs re-hash in a cabin, but minus the heart of Reservoir Dogs.ABNorman wrote:Trying to force myself to watch the Hateful Eight. I hate Tarantino, but love westerns. Yay or nay?
But I wouldn't suggest subjecting yourself to it if you hate QT.
barry pepper is underratedtragabigzanda wrote:Children of Men is great, I should watch it again.
I watched Spike Lee's The 25th Hour. Hadn't seen it since it first came out. It's fantastic -- probably in my top five Spike Lee films. The whole cast is excellent, but Ed Norton and Barry Pepper make the movie for me.