as it happens, I wish I had rented The Fall instead of buying it
Well no one said anything about buying it, silly.
FACT: Tarsem Singh's movies are equally as compelling with the sound turned off. As a bonus, they become more compelling if you listen to your iPod instead, preferably to something like Phillip Glass or Daft Punk.
I have told people to wait for rental instead of seeing things in the theater. Comedies, for example, that aren't screamingly funny and don't really gain anything by being on a big screen. I guess it's me saying "it's not worth the extra expense of going to the theater to see it but still worth the lower price to rent it"
Some movies just aren't interesting enough to watch in theaters. Avengers, Captain America and Dark Knight Rises are. Scott Pilgrim, John Carter or Hunger Games are not. This varies on the person, of course. That and ticket prices are getting too expensive these days.
I have told people to wait for rental instead of seeing things in the theater. Comedies, for example, that aren't screamingly funny and don't really gain anything by being on a big screen. I guess it's me saying "it's not worth the extra expense of going to the theater to see it but still worth the lower price to rent it"
Some movies just aren't interesting enough to watch in theaters. Avengers, Captain America and Dark Knight Rises are. Scott Pilgrim, John Carter or Hunger Games are not. This varies on the person, of course. That and ticket prices are getting too expensive these days.
You should have watched Scott Pilgrim. It is on my list of movies that gained the most from being watched in a theater.
nightmarenny on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I have told people to wait for rental instead of seeing things in the theater. Comedies, for example, that aren't screamingly funny and don't really gain anything by being on a big screen. I guess it's me saying "it's not worth the extra expense of going to the theater to see it but still worth the lower price to rent it"
Some movies just aren't interesting enough to watch in theaters. Avengers, Captain America and Dark Knight Rises are. Scott Pilgrim, John Carter or Hunger Games are not. This varies on the person, of course. That and ticket prices are getting too expensive these days.
How can you say that about two movies that aren't even out yet?
Here's a good rule of thumb: what format is the movie being shot in? If it's shot in "scope" (i.e. a wide aspect ratio), the director really wants you to see a wide field of view. And that means watching it on a darkened room on a 50' screen.
I have told people to wait for rental instead of seeing things in the theater. Comedies, for example, that aren't screamingly funny and don't really gain anything by being on a big screen. I guess it's me saying "it's not worth the extra expense of going to the theater to see it but still worth the lower price to rent it"
Some movies just aren't interesting enough to watch in theaters. Avengers, Captain America and Dark Knight Rises are. Scott Pilgrim, John Carter or Hunger Games are not. This varies on the person, of course. That and ticket prices are getting too expensive these days.
You should have watched Scott Pilgrim. It is on my list movies that gained the most from being watched in a theater.
Speed Racer is another that benefits from a theater. Haven't seen it in a theater, only from watching it on tv. It's obvious they were going for an almost 3D atmosphere. Tron: Legacy was fantastic in a theater.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
can I get some opinions on the themes/message of Ides of March
I have some ideas but I'd love to hear what others think (and sorry if it's been previously discussed, I don't keep up with every page). I enjoyed it and thought it was engaging, also I am stupid obsessed with Ryan Gosling so there's that, but I haven't gotten all my thoughts straight about the themes.
I felt it was your pretty standard "character gets involved in politics as an idealist, discovers that politics is a dirty game, and thus loses his innocence/naiveté", with the slight additional twist that
rather than leave politics in disgust, he decides to become a cynical bastard and plays the dirty game so well that he forces others to become dirty (Clooney's character). The movie suggests that because the current political system is driven by selfishness above selflessness and image over substance, it will lead to tragedy (the girl's suicide), and will sustain itself over time. Enough people will always choose as Gosling does to play the game dirty for their own advancement that the system will force out everyone else and resist all reform.
For another really good take on the same themes, check out the classic Robert Redford movie "The Candidate", which besides being really good and probably ahead of its time, has one of the all-time great last lines.
I have told people to wait for rental instead of seeing things in the theater. Comedies, for example, that aren't screamingly funny and don't really gain anything by being on a big screen. I guess it's me saying "it's not worth the extra expense of going to the theater to see it but still worth the lower price to rent it"
Some movies just aren't interesting enough to watch in theaters. Avengers, Captain America and Dark Knight Rises are. Scott Pilgrim, John Carter or Hunger Games are not. This varies on the person, of course. That and ticket prices are getting too expensive these days.
How can you say that about two movies that aren't even out yet?
Here's a good rule of thumb: what format is the movie being shot in? If it's shot in "scope" (i.e. a wide aspect ratio), the director really wants you to see a wide field of view. And that means watching it on a darkened room on a 50' screen.
I don't consider stuff like that. It's whether a movie looks entertaining enough that I can't wait longer to watch it until it hits dvd or tv.
I have told people to wait for rental instead of seeing things in the theater. Comedies, for example, that aren't screamingly funny and don't really gain anything by being on a big screen. I guess it's me saying "it's not worth the extra expense of going to the theater to see it but still worth the lower price to rent it"
Some movies just aren't interesting enough to watch in theaters. Avengers, Captain America and Dark Knight Rises are. Scott Pilgrim, John Carter or Hunger Games are not. This varies on the person, of course. That and ticket prices are getting too expensive these days.
You should have watched Scott Pilgrim. It is on my list movies that gained the most from being watched in a theater.
Speed Racer is another that benefits from a theater. Haven't seen it in a theater, only from watching it on tv. It's obvious they were going for an almost 3D atmosphere. Tron: Legacy was fantastic in a theater.
This, I will always defend Speed Racer, it was a ten year old boys wildest fantasy on crack.
I have told people to wait for rental instead of seeing things in the theater. Comedies, for example, that aren't screamingly funny and don't really gain anything by being on a big screen. I guess it's me saying "it's not worth the extra expense of going to the theater to see it but still worth the lower price to rent it"
Some movies just aren't interesting enough to watch in theaters. Avengers, Captain America and Dark Knight Rises are. Scott Pilgrim, John Carter or Hunger Games are not. This varies on the person, of course. That and ticket prices are getting too expensive these days.
You should have watched Scott Pilgrim. It is on my list movies that gained the most from being watched in a theater.
Speed Racer is another that benefits from a theater. Haven't seen it in a theater, only from watching it on tv. It's obvious they were going for an almost 3D atmosphere. Tron: Legacy was fantastic in a theater.
This, I will always defend Speed Racer, it was a ten year old boys wildest fantasy on crack.
That it was. Can't believe how bad the reviews and public opinion made it seem like the worst film ever.
I have told people to wait for rental instead of seeing things in the theater. Comedies, for example, that aren't screamingly funny and don't really gain anything by being on a big screen. I guess it's me saying "it's not worth the extra expense of going to the theater to see it but still worth the lower price to rent it"
Some movies just aren't interesting enough to watch in theaters. Avengers, Captain America and Dark Knight Rises are. Scott Pilgrim, John Carter or Hunger Games are not. This varies on the person, of course. That and ticket prices are getting too expensive these days.
How can you say that about two movies that aren't even out yet?
Here's a good rule of thumb: what format is the movie being shot in? If it's shot in "scope" (i.e. a wide aspect ratio), the director really wants you to see a wide field of view. And that means watching it on a darkened room on a 50' screen.
I don't consider stuff like that. It's whether a movie looks entertaining enough that I can't wait longer to watch it until it hits dvd or tv.
That seems a little odd. There are actual tangible benefits to seeing a movie in theaters. Yes one is that it's released earlier but you wouldn't see a movie because it will be a better movie in theaters?
can I get some opinions on the themes/message of Ides of March
I have some ideas but I'd love to hear what others think (and sorry if it's been previously discussed, I don't keep up with every page). I enjoyed it and thought it was engaging, also I am stupid obsessed with Ryan Gosling so there's that, but I haven't gotten all my thoughts straight about the themes.
I felt it was your pretty standard "character gets involved in politics as an idealist, discovers that politics is a dirty game, and thus loses his innocence/naiveté", with the slight additional twist that
rather than leave politics in disgust, he decides to become a cynical bastard and plays the dirty game so well that he forces others to become dirty (Clooney's character). The movie suggests that because the current political system is driven by selfishness above selflessness and image over substance, it will lead to tragedy (the girl's suicide), and will sustain itself over time. Enough people will always choose as Gosling does to play the game dirty for their own advancement that the system will force out everyone else and resist all reform.
For another really good take on the same themes, check out the classic Robert Redford movie "The Candidate", which besides being really good and probably ahead of its time, has one of the all-time great last lines.
do you think the final scene
implies that Gosling might try to take the system down from the inside, or even turn around on Clooney's character? I mean obviously he is struggling with his choice. but as you said he outplays the others at their own game, once he decides to play. And I felt like he was dissilusioned, but also may have felt that if he let the others "win" after the girl's suicide that her death would be in vain, which I guess in a way is a bit more noble of a reason than just his own personal gain.
also I wasn't sure if there was any implication that perhaps the "suicide" wasn't? which would just make it all dirtier, I guess.
I have told people to wait for rental instead of seeing things in the theater. Comedies, for example, that aren't screamingly funny and don't really gain anything by being on a big screen. I guess it's me saying "it's not worth the extra expense of going to the theater to see it but still worth the lower price to rent it"
Some movies just aren't interesting enough to watch in theaters. Avengers, Captain America and Dark Knight Rises are. Scott Pilgrim, John Carter or Hunger Games are not. This varies on the person, of course. That and ticket prices are getting too expensive these days.
How can you say that about two movies that aren't even out yet?
Here's a good rule of thumb: what format is the movie being shot in? If it's shot in "scope" (i.e. a wide aspect ratio), the director really wants you to see a wide field of view. And that means watching it on a darkened room on a 50' screen.
I don't consider stuff like that. It's whether a movie looks entertaining enough that I can't wait longer to watch it until it hits dvd or tv.
That seems a little odd. There are actual tangible benefits to seeing a movie in theaters. Yes one is that it's released earlier but you wouldn't see a movie because it will be a better movie in theaters?
Nope. I'm more interested in how the movie is rather then what special effects it has in its theatrical run.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I liked Ides of March. I think considerably moreso than the filmgoing public or critics did, and in a year as weak as this one was it was a shame that it kind of got swept under the rug.
My take on the film was that by the end, Gosling's character made the choice to play by the rules and stay in the system in hopes of giving the country its best option, even if it was a flawed option. I think that was the greater overall message re: politics in the film; people are people, politics is politics, and you're not supporting a person, you're supporting a collection of positions. Clooney's candidate was almost cartoonishly ideal for progressive tastes, and was legitimate in his platform. He just also happened to be a lecherous jerk who didn't mind breaking one or two eggs for his presidential omelet.
I liked it. I liked how when Gosling's character saw the true face of this dream candidate, this man he idolized and spent his career supporting become a loathsome monster, he simply said, "I guess them's the breaks," and came to terms with it. What was he going to do, go to the press? Risk a worse candidate getting the nomination?
A central tenet of politics is compromise, but everyone always thinks it's the duty of everyone else to compromise. Here, Gosling compromised his ideals and his innocence for the greater needs of the nation, and still managed to come through the gauntlet in one piece, hands on the reigns of the campaign.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
implies that Gosling might try to take the system down from the inside, or even turn around on Clooney's character?
I think by the end Clooney knows that Gosling actually runs the show, and as long as Gosling is around and has the (possibly non-existent) video tape, he's going to be on a short leash.
I liked the film if for nothing else than its open positing of the idea that "justice" isn't a binary state, especially in the world of politics.
I liked Ides of March. I think considerably moreso than the filmgoing public or critics did, and in a year as weak as this one was it was a shame that it kind of got swept under the rug.
My take on the film was that by the end, Gosling's character made the choice to play by the rules and stay in the system in hopes of giving the country its best option, even if it was a flawed option. I think that was the greater overall message re: politics in the film; people are people, politics is politics, and you're not supporting a person, you're supporting a collection of positions. Clooney's candidate was almost cartoonishly ideal for progressive tastes, and was legitimate in his platform. He just also happened to be a lecherous jerk who didn't mind breaking one or two eggs for his presidential omelet.
I liked it. I liked how when Gosling's character saw the true face of this dream candidate, this man he idolized and spent his career supporting become a loathsome monster, he simply said, "I guess them's the breaks," and came to terms with it. What was he going to do, go to the press? Risk a worse candidate getting the nomination?
A central tenet of politics is compromise, but everyone always thinks it's the duty of everyone else to compromise. Here, Gosling compromised his ideals and his innocence for the greater needs of the nation, and still managed to come through the gauntlet in one piece, hands on the reigns of the campaign.
He made a personal sacrifice, I guess I would say. He could have refused to compromise and at least been able to say that he wasn't behind whatever came out in the wash. And really, he didn't just come to terms with it, he actively joined in and participated in it. First by covering up the girl, then by extorting Clooney into rehiring him. Clooney wins, Gosling gets a job, but has to live with it the rest of his life - that he participated in the events and in the culture that led to that girl's death.
I also thought there was a bit of a theme brought out by the reporter - in the end, what really matters? will the average person notice an appreciable difference? the dirty politics is seen as necessary for the person who wants to hold office, but is it really necessary for the good of this country, or is it more harmful that helpful, even if it gets the "right" person into a position - was Gosling's compromise really for the good of the nation?
I have told people to wait for rental instead of seeing things in the theater. Comedies, for example, that aren't screamingly funny and don't really gain anything by being on a big screen. I guess it's me saying "it's not worth the extra expense of going to the theater to see it but still worth the lower price to rent it"
Some movies just aren't interesting enough to watch in theaters. Avengers, Captain America and Dark Knight Rises are. Scott Pilgrim, John Carter or Hunger Games are not. This varies on the person, of course. That and ticket prices are getting too expensive these days.
You should have watched Scott Pilgrim. It is on my list of movies that gained the most from being watched in a theater.
It's one of the few films where I felt like it did fundamentally change depending on the means of viewing. In the theater, it really felt like a big action movie, but for some reason when I rewatch it on my TV it feels more like it was made-for-tv movie with only the aspirations to be just that. Other "big" movies like say Star Wars, Die Hard, etc. still feel big on the TV to me so I'm not sure what's different about Scott Pilgrim.
And I'd agree most comedies don't gain a lot from the theater experience, but having heard a lot of the jokes by the time it hits netflix is pretty annoying. Smaller releases are usually a safe bet though.
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
Just finished watching Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai, which unexpectedly had some additional benefits after seeing Grizzly Man. There's actually some bear symbolism at play in Ghost Dog that I'd forgotten about.
I actually like it better than I remember when seeing it on tape back when it first came out.
Ghost Dog's a pretty oddball of a movie, especially for a Jim Jarmusch movie. For me, I think it's actually my favorite cyberpunk movie, because it exhibits a lot of ideas and themes that can be found in cyberpunk stories, without the forced visual archetypes and mandatory stylistic choices that drag a lot of cyberpunk into, well, drag. I like the over-the-hill gangsters who are so far past their prime they're getting roughed up by landlords, I like the Haitian ice cream salesman, I like the guy somewhere out there building a boat on the roof of his third story apartment building for reasons none of us ever get to learn. It's the sort of movie that you'd think should be an action movie but has almost nothing in it that backs that up-in spite of all the people getting shot. It also just looks weird-for a movie that came out in '99, it sure looks more like something from 1994 or 1995. It's not slick, it didn't have a big budget. It has a very handmade feel to it that helps ground the story.
On a side note, Ghost Dog also made me realize it could be an excellent video game. The messenger pigeons, the kitbag full of tricks, the thing he had to hack car alarms and steal a ride whenever it suited him, the ice cream truck...I don't know. I saw a lot of stuff I'd like to see in a game that would be kind of like Hitman but more focused, set in a persistent open world where it's one long mission that is shaped by your day-to-day actions as you approach the endgame. Somehow I doubt the actual undertaking would be worth it, but the movie is just chock-ful of inspiring stuff I wouldn't mind a developer latching onto and developing some kind of equivalent experience.
EDIT: And now I have learned that there apparently was some kind of Ghost Dog tabletop RPG that briefly existed. Weird night.
Linespider5 on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
I have resurrected the Instant Watch Film society if anyone is interested.
EDIT: And now I have learned that there apparently was some kind of Ghost Dog tabletop RPG that briefly existed. Weird night.
I was going to tell you of it's existence but you've already found out. What's even weirder is that it's specifically designed for a games master and a single player. Pretty easy to balance the party.
And I'd agree most comedies don't gain a lot from the theater experience, but having heard a lot of the jokes by the time it hits netflix is pretty annoying. Smaller releases are usually a safe bet though.
I could not disagree more. A good comedy (or any good film actually) should be experienced in a big crowd as often as possible.
It's why I never really understand why people feel the need to watch schlocky action blockbusters in the theatres. It's loud and it's big, but that's about all it delivers. Really not worth it, and just rackets up the box office numbers for noisy, dumb action movies which only leads to more noisy, dumb action movies.
I think it's hard to grasp that getting mauled to death by bears is something that can actually happen.
I find that more likely than someone enjoying Your Highness. It's just one of those things.
Apparently Law Abiding Citizen was on tv here last night because I woke up to a lot of Facebook updates along the lines of 'Man, what a kick-ass movie' or 'totally badass'. What certain people take away from that movie is a bit disturbing.
This post was sponsored by Tom Cruise.
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
Law Abiding Citizen is one of those movies that I think a lot of people would've liked it if it was a comic book. But it wasn't, and as a Hollywood movie it's pretty excessive and runs from a lot of the issues it pretends to raise. It's sort of like The Rock, if The Rock was a joyless battle instead of a fucking adventure to save the day.
0
Options
The JudgeThe Terwilliger CurvesRegistered Userregular
My advice/ranking on films basically boils down to:
* Worth it at any price, should be seen on a screen the size of Alaska
* Needs to be seen on the aforementioned Alaska-screen, but paying full price to see it might be bothersome (i.e. - Sunday morning matinee)
* Nothing you need to rush out to see - worth a watch, but home viewing is fine (film is either 'eh, it's okay' or 'this is good but doesn't need the full theater effect')
* Home viewing as background noise (might have a scene or two that should be watched, otherwise, you are not missing a whole lot)
* Your mileage may vary, but I didn't care for it
* If you press Play, I will throw something heavy in your direction
I saw Hanna and First Class this weekend and both are comfortably in the middle categories.
Last pint: Turmoil CDA / Barley Brown's - Untappd: TheJudge_PDX
So I saw The Woman in Black tonight. It was pretty lame.
It wasn't out-and-out awful, it's just so by-the-numbers that I have to wonder why the Tomatometer is higher on average than it is for any other horror films with scary little girls, ghostly faces staring back in reflected surfaces, and annoyingly predictable jump-scares whenever the music fades out or you hear a character breathing heavily.
Late to the party on Woman in Black, but for the most part I found it to be a pretty good suspense/scary film. More along the lines of The Orphanage, though with a weaker plot. Then again these are the kind of scary movies I prefer.
Johnny English Reborn was decent, when it comes up on one of the cable channels or HBO ad nauseum it's worth one look. It's rather standard but does some new things with the spy spoof genre, like a nice take on how to beat a parkour guy you're chasing, and how the spy game has become less masculine. McNulty is in the film, who I didn't suspect, and Gillian Anderson looks better here than she did in X Files. There's worse comedies out there.
I'm one of the few people I know who thought the first Johnny English was HILARIOUS. I was worried about Reborn based on the reviews, but now I'll definitely have to give it a try.
it's not that simple, and I would definitely not call him an "obvious psychopath." maybe viewed through the lens of the documentary, sure, it's easily laid out for all of us to see. but for the people in his life, who loved him and wanted him to be happy, it would be much harder to see that and do what you say.
so go ahead and judge if you want I guess, I don't see the point of it nor do I think we are really in the best position to judge her actions, either.
I guess I'm probably more walled off than that, and I'm honestly a very guarded and discerning person, probably to a fault at times.
The moment someone I loved started talking about living with bears, I'm asking my doctor to hook him up with a good therapist.
For what it's worth (not a lot), my arm-chair diagnosis was bipolar disorder. After watching Grizzly Man, I was simultaneously angry at him for getting his girlfriend killed and feeling sorry for him that none of his loved ones ever convinced him to go to a therapist.
I have never understood the love for David Lynch. I haven't seen all of his work, I trudged through most of Twin Peaks (which I just found corny and bad), Blue Velvet (again, just awful), Mulholland Drive (disjointed mess, but I realize that's because it's half a pilot and half a movie made to tie together the pilot). I've seen parts of Eraserhead, but reading the synopsis, it just sounds like a bad film school student throwing up "I'm artistic" onto a script and expecting people to believe the insane dribble is deep and means something.
Why do people like David Lynch? From what I've seen and what I've read of his work, he just sounds insane. And the only way I can see enjoying his movies at all is just buy laughing at them for being so ridiculously disjointed and strange.
I mean, comparing his work to something like "Synecdoche, New York", he's not a master of his craft when it comes to metaphorical and deep, none literal storytelling. What am I missing here?
At his best, Lynch is the absolute best at nightmare logic. I absolutely understand not liking him, but honestly, there's little to no comparison between Lynch's films and Synecdoche NY. The latter is very much Charlie Kaufman meta-postmodernism, whereas Lynch is much closer to the surrealists, as far as I'm concerned. And while I'm not a big fan of Mulholland Drive, it's one of his least messy, disjointed films - it's perhaps the one Lynch puzzle box that can be solved completely, and as such I've found it considerably less disturbing than some of his other work.
Death of Rats, I don't think there's anything anyone can say that will suddenly make you understand and, more importantly, enjoy Lynch. If you watch the "There is no orchestra" scene in Mulholland Drive, or the reveal of who killed Laura Palmer, without feeling disturbed yet fascinated, then Lynch is simply not for you. If you don't appreciate him for the atmosphere, you won't appreciate the other elements, because the atmosphere of being caught in a bad dream and unable to wake up is key to Lynch when he works best. If anything, you might enjoy The Straight Story - which does share certain formal qualities with the other films, but is one of his most accessible films and perhaps the one that is most about telling a straightforward story. The Elephant Man also goes in that direction, but it's still the more obviously stylised of the two films.
P.S.: There are quite a few things about Twin Peaks that don't hold up, especially in the second half, but the series also has some of Lynch's best scenes IMO.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
On a completely different note: I would've liked The Town a lot, if only I hadn't kept thinking that I was watching Heat with a Boston reskin. It's a shame - the film is well made, shot, directed, acted and written, but it completely stands in the shadow of Mann's great movie.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
Lynch is one of those guys I've had a protracted opinion of-I somehow got to learn about the guy well before I ever got to see his films, and I just liked him. I like his gentle cornball personality that contrasts with the things that fascinate him in art. I like the way his mind works. He can speak in visual metaphors very easily and naturally without relying on overused metaphors that have become essentially meaningless and only self-referential. He's an artist's artist.
The fact that he often is compelled to engineer towering nightmares that lurk in small rooms is one that took me a while to wrap my head around.
At his best, Lynch is the absolute best at nightmare logic. I absolutely understand not liking him, but honestly, there's little to no comparison between Lynch's films and Synecdoche NY. The latter is very much Charlie Kaufman meta-postmodernism, whereas Lynch is much closer to the surrealists, as far as I'm concerned. And while I'm not a big fan of Mulholland Drive, it's one of his least messy, disjointed films - it's perhaps the one Lynch puzzle box that can be solved completely, and as such I've found it considerably less disturbing than some of his other work.
Death of Rats, I don't think there's anything anyone can say that will suddenly make you understand and, more importantly, enjoy Lynch. If you watch the "There is no orchestra" scene in Mulholland Drive, or the reveal of who killed Laura Palmer, without feeling disturbed yet fascinated, then Lynch is simply not for you. If you don't appreciate him for the atmosphere, you won't appreciate the other elements, because the atmosphere of being caught in a bad dream and unable to wake up is key to Lynch when he works best. If anything, you might enjoy The Straight Story - which does share certain formal qualities with the other films, but is one of his most accessible films and perhaps the one that is most about telling a straightforward story. The Elephant Man also goes in that direction, but it's still the more obviously stylised of the two films.
P.S.: There are quite a few things about Twin Peaks that don't hold up, especially in the second half, but the series also has some of Lynch's best scenes IMO.
I think this might be part of the disconnect for me: David Lynch's movies don't hold up on the visual front for me. If the "trick" to his movies is watching them with it in mind that they are built on "nightmare logic", the fact that they look so staged brings me completely out of the nightmare world he's creating. Even looking at the trailer for "Inland Empire", the lighting looks sloppy to me. It's like Lynch is lighting for a stage play instead of a movie, which immediately brings me out of the experience.
Again, it's important to note I'm not saying Lynch is a bad director or anything like that, but I just can not understand his appeal.
I saw Hanna and First Class this weekend and both are comfortably in the middle categories.
I saw Hanna on HBO or somesuch without surround sound. It was definitely a film that needed the big screen and great sound to really be fabulous. I think it really had some great style going for it. I'd say it is a recommend for me. Your second category down works well for it.
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
My film education as a serious proposition basically started at my high school film club, which exposed me to movies far beyond my experience up to that point. My first Kurosawa (Rashomon), my first Aronofsky (Pi), and my first Lynch (Eraserhead). I remember how the older members of the club treated Eraserhead as something special--a moviegoing experience that was actually physically difficult to get through, harrowing, like a test. Could you watch a movie whose images disturbed, whose soundtrack grated, whose narrative made zero concessions toward comprehensibility or recognizability? Unlike 2001, where we secured a larger projection screen, we watched Eraserhead on the same old TV--but the teacher who ran the club brought in external speakers. Listening to the movie was like dreaming about a factory whose products are always just out of view.
Watching Eraserhead exploded my previous beliefs about how far and how strange a movie could go. Even Un Chien Andalou looks basically like a movie, but Eraserhead's stark black and white cinematography, subliminal soundtrack, and freewheeling surrealism through which seeped a toxic sense of anxiety and despair all suggested that movies could truly do anything.
I've seen several other of Lynch's films (Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive, mostly), and came to the conclusion that they never really added up to more than the sum of their parts... but were worth watching because of the way each scene--strange but assured, sensual and richly detailed--served to distract you from caring about how it fit into the whole. I've seen what it looks like when Lynch plays it straight--The Elephant Man is a hauntingly beautiful but otherwise conventional movie--and when he doesn't, there's nothing in the movies like it. That's enough for me.
So, Todd Philips (Old School & Hangover) made a documentary about frats in 1998 that never aired due to controversy on whether parts of it were staged or not.
I was getting the post ready and was on wiki looking at the controversy stuff and blanked.
That video is pretty hardcore NSFW.
TehSpectre on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think my favorite Lynch film is probably Blue Velvet.
There's something extremely viscerally engaging about a young man's naivety being broken down like a cannonball through kleenex. Especially in the kinds of places I grew up in, there's this strange pervasive communal belief in small towns that all is well and everything is cheery and perfect all the time. And yet I still know of people who I went to school with who are now dead or in jail related to involvement in all kinds of salacious shit, and it happened right there in Perfectville, USA.
Kids at 18 are full of bluster and yearn for mystery and excitement, especially young men, who all harbor the fantasy of being a sex object and meeting dangerous women. So Lynch fulfills that fantasy to a very logical end, and it's everything you've always in the worst possible way. By the end, your psychologically disturbed fuck-buddy is standing in your parent's house stark naked, screaming, and bleeding after you killed her insane genderqueer S&M partner.
And everyone wants the fantasy. No one wants the reality. But Lynch serves it up anyway, daring you to watch. And you'd do just like Kyle McLachlan, running back to banality and the cold comforts of suburbia as fast as your legs could carry you.
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
That's funny. I always saw Kyle McLachlan's character as becoming somehow fulfilled and becoming a stronger, more confident person for having braved the danger and come out okay.
I also saw his character being the sort of person who would go on to join the FBI become Dale Cooper.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
That's funny. I always saw Kyle McLachlan's character as becoming somehow fulfilled and becoming a stronger, more confident person for having braved the danger and come out okay.
I also saw his character being the sort of person who would go on to join the FBI become Dale Cooper.
Oh, I think McLachlan comes out the other side for the better. Certainly less naive, if nothing else, and probably with his fantasy of meeting strange women well and truly purged.
I think his arc is going from a wide-eyed suburban kid who longs for excitement to a worldly guy who understands that suburbia ain't really all that bad, considering.
Posts
Well no one said anything about buying it, silly.
FACT: Tarsem Singh's movies are equally as compelling with the sound turned off. As a bonus, they become more compelling if you listen to your iPod instead, preferably to something like Phillip Glass or Daft Punk.
Some movies just aren't interesting enough to watch in theaters. Avengers, Captain America and Dark Knight Rises are. Scott Pilgrim, John Carter or Hunger Games are not. This varies on the person, of course. That and ticket prices are getting too expensive these days.
You should have watched Scott Pilgrim. It is on my list of movies that gained the most from being watched in a theater.
How can you say that about two movies that aren't even out yet?
Here's a good rule of thumb: what format is the movie being shot in? If it's shot in "scope" (i.e. a wide aspect ratio), the director really wants you to see a wide field of view. And that means watching it on a darkened room on a 50' screen.
Speed Racer is another that benefits from a theater. Haven't seen it in a theater, only from watching it on tv. It's obvious they were going for an almost 3D atmosphere. Tron: Legacy was fantastic in a theater.
I felt it was your pretty standard "character gets involved in politics as an idealist, discovers that politics is a dirty game, and thus loses his innocence/naiveté", with the slight additional twist that
For another really good take on the same themes, check out the classic Robert Redford movie "The Candidate", which besides being really good and probably ahead of its time, has one of the all-time great last lines.
I don't consider stuff like that. It's whether a movie looks entertaining enough that I can't wait longer to watch it until it hits dvd or tv.
This, I will always defend Speed Racer, it was a ten year old boys wildest fantasy on crack.
That it was. Can't believe how bad the reviews and public opinion made it seem like the worst film ever.
That seems a little odd. There are actual tangible benefits to seeing a movie in theaters. Yes one is that it's released earlier but you wouldn't see a movie because it will be a better movie in theaters?
do you think the final scene
also I wasn't sure if there was any implication that perhaps the "suicide" wasn't? which would just make it all dirtier, I guess.
Nope. I'm more interested in how the movie is rather then what special effects it has in its theatrical run.
I liked it. I liked how when Gosling's character saw the true face of this dream candidate, this man he idolized and spent his career supporting become a loathsome monster, he simply said, "I guess them's the breaks," and came to terms with it. What was he going to do, go to the press? Risk a worse candidate getting the nomination?
A central tenet of politics is compromise, but everyone always thinks it's the duty of everyone else to compromise. Here, Gosling compromised his ideals and his innocence for the greater needs of the nation, and still managed to come through the gauntlet in one piece, hands on the reigns of the campaign.
I also thought there was a bit of a theme brought out by the reporter - in the end, what really matters? will the average person notice an appreciable difference? the dirty politics is seen as necessary for the person who wants to hold office, but is it really necessary for the good of this country, or is it more harmful that helpful, even if it gets the "right" person into a position - was Gosling's compromise really for the good of the nation?
It's one of the few films where I felt like it did fundamentally change depending on the means of viewing. In the theater, it really felt like a big action movie, but for some reason when I rewatch it on my TV it feels more like it was made-for-tv movie with only the aspirations to be just that. Other "big" movies like say Star Wars, Die Hard, etc. still feel big on the TV to me so I'm not sure what's different about Scott Pilgrim.
And I'd agree most comedies don't gain a lot from the theater experience, but having heard a lot of the jokes by the time it hits netflix is pretty annoying. Smaller releases are usually a safe bet though.
I actually like it better than I remember when seeing it on tape back when it first came out.
Ghost Dog's a pretty oddball of a movie, especially for a Jim Jarmusch movie. For me, I think it's actually my favorite cyberpunk movie, because it exhibits a lot of ideas and themes that can be found in cyberpunk stories, without the forced visual archetypes and mandatory stylistic choices that drag a lot of cyberpunk into, well, drag. I like the over-the-hill gangsters who are so far past their prime they're getting roughed up by landlords, I like the Haitian ice cream salesman, I like the guy somewhere out there building a boat on the roof of his third story apartment building for reasons none of us ever get to learn. It's the sort of movie that you'd think should be an action movie but has almost nothing in it that backs that up-in spite of all the people getting shot. It also just looks weird-for a movie that came out in '99, it sure looks more like something from 1994 or 1995. It's not slick, it didn't have a big budget. It has a very handmade feel to it that helps ground the story.
On a side note, Ghost Dog also made me realize it could be an excellent video game. The messenger pigeons, the kitbag full of tricks, the thing he had to hack car alarms and steal a ride whenever it suited him, the ice cream truck...I don't know. I saw a lot of stuff I'd like to see in a game that would be kind of like Hitman but more focused, set in a persistent open world where it's one long mission that is shaped by your day-to-day actions as you approach the endgame. Somehow I doubt the actual undertaking would be worth it, but the movie is just chock-ful of inspiring stuff I wouldn't mind a developer latching onto and developing some kind of equivalent experience.
EDIT: And now I have learned that there apparently was some kind of Ghost Dog tabletop RPG that briefly existed. Weird night.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/156687/instant-watch-film-societys-bogus-journey#Item_1
I was going to tell you of it's existence but you've already found out. What's even weirder is that it's specifically designed for a games master and a single player. Pretty easy to balance the party.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
I could not disagree more. A good comedy (or any good film actually) should be experienced in a big crowd as often as possible.
It's why I never really understand why people feel the need to watch schlocky action blockbusters in the theatres. It's loud and it's big, but that's about all it delivers. Really not worth it, and just rackets up the box office numbers for noisy, dumb action movies which only leads to more noisy, dumb action movies.
I find that more likely than someone enjoying Your Highness. It's just one of those things.
Apparently Law Abiding Citizen was on tv here last night because I woke up to a lot of Facebook updates along the lines of 'Man, what a kick-ass movie' or 'totally badass'. What certain people take away from that movie is a bit disturbing.
* Worth it at any price, should be seen on a screen the size of Alaska
* Needs to be seen on the aforementioned Alaska-screen, but paying full price to see it might be bothersome (i.e. - Sunday morning matinee)
* Nothing you need to rush out to see - worth a watch, but home viewing is fine (film is either 'eh, it's okay' or 'this is good but doesn't need the full theater effect')
* Home viewing as background noise (might have a scene or two that should be watched, otherwise, you are not missing a whole lot)
* Your mileage may vary, but I didn't care for it
* If you press Play, I will throw something heavy in your direction
I saw Hanna and First Class this weekend and both are comfortably in the middle categories.
Late to the party on Woman in Black, but for the most part I found it to be a pretty good suspense/scary film. More along the lines of The Orphanage, though with a weaker plot. Then again these are the kind of scary movies I prefer.
I'm one of the few people I know who thought the first Johnny English was HILARIOUS. I was worried about Reborn based on the reviews, but now I'll definitely have to give it a try.
For what it's worth (not a lot), my arm-chair diagnosis was bipolar disorder. After watching Grizzly Man, I was simultaneously angry at him for getting his girlfriend killed and feeling sorry for him that none of his loved ones ever convinced him to go to a therapist.
Why do people like David Lynch? From what I've seen and what I've read of his work, he just sounds insane. And the only way I can see enjoying his movies at all is just buy laughing at them for being so ridiculously disjointed and strange.
I mean, comparing his work to something like "Synecdoche, New York", he's not a master of his craft when it comes to metaphorical and deep, none literal storytelling. What am I missing here?
Death of Rats, I don't think there's anything anyone can say that will suddenly make you understand and, more importantly, enjoy Lynch. If you watch the "There is no orchestra" scene in Mulholland Drive, or the reveal of who killed Laura Palmer, without feeling disturbed yet fascinated, then Lynch is simply not for you. If you don't appreciate him for the atmosphere, you won't appreciate the other elements, because the atmosphere of being caught in a bad dream and unable to wake up is key to Lynch when he works best. If anything, you might enjoy The Straight Story - which does share certain formal qualities with the other films, but is one of his most accessible films and perhaps the one that is most about telling a straightforward story. The Elephant Man also goes in that direction, but it's still the more obviously stylised of the two films.
P.S.: There are quite a few things about Twin Peaks that don't hold up, especially in the second half, but the series also has some of Lynch's best scenes IMO.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
The fact that he often is compelled to engineer towering nightmares that lurk in small rooms is one that took me a while to wrap my head around.
I think this might be part of the disconnect for me: David Lynch's movies don't hold up on the visual front for me. If the "trick" to his movies is watching them with it in mind that they are built on "nightmare logic", the fact that they look so staged brings me completely out of the nightmare world he's creating. Even looking at the trailer for "Inland Empire", the lighting looks sloppy to me. It's like Lynch is lighting for a stage play instead of a movie, which immediately brings me out of the experience.
Again, it's important to note I'm not saying Lynch is a bad director or anything like that, but I just can not understand his appeal.
I saw Hanna on HBO or somesuch without surround sound. It was definitely a film that needed the big screen and great sound to really be fabulous. I think it really had some great style going for it. I'd say it is a recommend for me. Your second category down works well for it.
but they're listening to every word I say
Watching Eraserhead exploded my previous beliefs about how far and how strange a movie could go. Even Un Chien Andalou looks basically like a movie, but Eraserhead's stark black and white cinematography, subliminal soundtrack, and freewheeling surrealism through which seeped a toxic sense of anxiety and despair all suggested that movies could truly do anything.
I've seen several other of Lynch's films (Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive, mostly), and came to the conclusion that they never really added up to more than the sum of their parts... but were worth watching because of the way each scene--strange but assured, sensual and richly detailed--served to distract you from caring about how it fit into the whole. I've seen what it looks like when Lynch plays it straight--The Elephant Man is a hauntingly beautiful but otherwise conventional movie--and when he doesn't, there's nothing in the movies like it. That's enough for me.
It's kind of insane.
Very, very, very NSFW.
I was getting the post ready and was on wiki looking at the controversy stuff and blanked.
That video is pretty hardcore NSFW.
There's something extremely viscerally engaging about a young man's naivety being broken down like a cannonball through kleenex. Especially in the kinds of places I grew up in, there's this strange pervasive communal belief in small towns that all is well and everything is cheery and perfect all the time. And yet I still know of people who I went to school with who are now dead or in jail related to involvement in all kinds of salacious shit, and it happened right there in Perfectville, USA.
Kids at 18 are full of bluster and yearn for mystery and excitement, especially young men, who all harbor the fantasy of being a sex object and meeting dangerous women. So Lynch fulfills that fantasy to a very logical end, and it's everything you've always in the worst possible way. By the end, your psychologically disturbed fuck-buddy is standing in your parent's house stark naked, screaming, and bleeding after you killed her insane genderqueer S&M partner.
And everyone wants the fantasy. No one wants the reality. But Lynch serves it up anyway, daring you to watch. And you'd do just like Kyle McLachlan, running back to banality and the cold comforts of suburbia as fast as your legs could carry you.
I also saw his character being the sort of person who would go on to join the FBI become Dale Cooper.
Oh, I think McLachlan comes out the other side for the better. Certainly less naive, if nothing else, and probably with his fantasy of meeting strange women well and truly purged.
I think his arc is going from a wide-eyed suburban kid who longs for excitement to a worldly guy who understands that suburbia ain't really all that bad, considering.