Just watched Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind for the first time in it's entirety, and i have to say I was very impressed. Especially with the visual effects, having it been made in 1977 and all.
This movie just reaffirms my high-regard for Steven Spielberg. His career has definitely earned him a spot among the greatest directors in hollywood. The man can tell a story :^:
Demerdar on
0
Options
GreasyKidsStuffMOMMM!ROAST BEEF WANTS TO KISS GIRLS ON THE TITTIES!Registered Userregular
edited March 2011
Great movie. I love the soundtrack too. John Williams is a treasure to humanity.
I saw the twist pretty early on, but I think it was still well done. I didn't feel it was so obvious as to be hamfisted, but rather just apparent enough to tip its hat while still letting the audience feel clever for figuring it out. Mostly, though, I don't think the point of the movie was the twist. The point was here is this guy who lives in a fantasy world because he can't bear to deal with reality. And that even when he's brought out of the state long enough to realize with perfect clarity that his choice is either reality or (effectively) death, the former is still so horrific that he opts for death.
That, more so than the twist, was the key moment of the film. It was the focus of the film's tragedy, and it was what everything led up to. I wouldn't say it's one of Scorcese's strongest films, but it was still fantastic. It's just that most of his films are fantasticker.
DiCaprio's last line in the film really makes the whole thing great in my eyes
Never ever ever ever read about what the director intended for Donnie Darko to be about. Your own interpretation will have been infinitely better and also, forever ruined by his stupidity.
If anything was going to make me subscribe to "Death of the Author" it is Kelly's vision for DD.
From what I remember from the special features from the theatrical cut DVD (though it's been a long time since I've seen it, so I might be misremembering), the original theatrical cut of Donnie Darko was, in fact, an approved cut by Richard Kelly, it's just he was contractually required as part of his deal for Final Cut that the film had to be under 2 hours, and to be under a certain budget. So it forced him to cut the flabbier/superfluous bits and extraneous special effect sequences.
That still doesn't negate the fact that his final cut was rubbish.
And it certainly doesn't negate the fact that Southland Tales is the most aggressively awful film ever made.
Southland Tales was actually cut down for it's theatrical release from the three-and-a-half-hour version that played at Cannes. It was even worse!
I know. I remember when it came out at Cannes and it got booed out of the theater.
A big part of me is morbidly curious and wants to see that 3+ hour cut.
Never ever ever ever read about what the director intended for Donnie Darko to be about. Your own interpretation will have been infinitely better and also, forever ruined by his stupidity.
This can also be a applied to the Boondock Saints.
Never ever ever ever read about what the director intended for Donnie Darko to be about. Your own interpretation will have been infinitely better and also, forever ruined by his stupidity.
I've got some friends who are theater majors, and today we got into a pretty heated debate. They claim that if a movie is based on a true story, it doesn't deserve to win best picture. Similarly, if an actor is portraying someone in a movie based on a true story, they don't deserve any award for that, either. They said it was because "it's easy to imitate someone, building a character is the real deal" or something to that effect. They were very passionate about that.
Personally, I think that is total bullshit. Thoughts?
I'd think that, from an acting perspective, taking on the role of an existing person would be harder than taking on the role of a fictional character. You have fewer options with a real person, since you're forced to adopt their characteristics, rather than just doing more or less what you want with a character. If you're portraying JFK or Hitler, there are some pretty objective standards of success WRT the accuracy of your portrayal.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I'd think that, from an acting perspective, taking on the role of an existing person would be harder than taking on the role of a fictional character. You have fewer options with a real person, since you're forced to adopt their characteristics, rather than just doing more or less what you want with a character. If you're portraying JFK or Hitler, there are some pretty objective standards of success WRT the accuracy of your portrayal.
It depends. Sometimes an actor makes a part completely their own. Eisenberg's portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg isn't at all like the real character. Conversely, Jamie Foxx won an academy award for basically doing a very good impersonation of Ray Charles.
The former seems like it takes more "acting" skill than the latter.
Donnie Darko was a tone-perfect John Hughes-meets-mindfuck-sci-fi flick with a smart emphasis on the former. Donnie Darko: Director's Cut, from what I've heard, seems to have been put together by someone who doesn't understand what made the first cut work and focusing instead on the part that falls apart when you look at it too closely. I greatly like the film in the former version and am glad never to have seen the latter.
Edit: on the subject of whether it's more difficult to act the part of a real person or not, I think the conversation is a complete non-starter. If anyone can show me a performance that is in no way based on existing people, a completely original performance that's supposed to depict a human being and that works for the audience, fantastic - until then I remain convinced that the discussion makes no sense whatsoever. And anyone involved in the theatre saying that playing 'real' people is more difficult than creating fictional people or vice versa is full of shit.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited March 2011
I see the real-person/imaginary-person thing regarding actors as a little like writing fiction versus non-fiction. Nobody (well, nobody non-retarded) would consider writing non-fiction to be simple just because you don't have to make any of it up. Fiction and non-fiction are their own things, both are hard as fuck to do really well, and arguing which is "better" or "harder" or whatever is just kind of stupid, and belies an immense ignorance of what actually goes into the endeavor.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I made my wife watch The Village and I told her to view it for what I interpreted it was supposed to be: a love story, rather than what it was advertised to be: a horror/monster film. She enjoyed it.
I quite like The Village, even after multiple viewings.
Just watched Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind for the first time in it's entirety, and i have to say I was very impressed. Especially with the visual effects, having it been made in 1977 and all.
This movie just reaffirms my high-regard for Steven Spielberg. His career has definitely earned him a spot among the greatest directors in hollywood. The man can tell a story :^:
I agree. I'm currently doing a film studies degree and it annoys me how much Spielberg gets written off as a popular Hollywood director with little or no artistic merit. Sure he's popular, but that doesn't mean he dumbs things down. Minority Report is one of my favourite sci-fi's.
blech. i was with you up to minority report. i enjoyed it the first time i watched it but on subsequent viewings its always felt sloppy and lacking cohesiveness within the world it creates.
spielberg is and O-K director. he's made some really fabulous films and he's made some not so great mediocre efforts. more than anything i think he's inconsistent.
I think I like Minority Report because it was risky for such a mainstream director to handle such a bleak and depressing story. Especially a Philip K Dick adaptation which isn't easy material.. I suppose I just respect that. I'll admit that there are some sloppy mistakes but honestly I'm entertained by it every time.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by cohesiveness with the world it creates..
Also it's true, he's inconsistent, but he's never boring.
I think Minority Report did a decent job of creating a realistic near-future, with a couple of exceptions. The future highway seemed a little bit much for a world only 50 or so years in the future.
I think a lot of science fiction movies tend to try and make the future too, well, futuristic.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
NappuccinoSurveyor of Things and StuffRegistered Userregular
Never ever ever ever read about what the director intended for Donnie Darko to be about. Your own interpretation will have been infinitely better and also, forever ruined by his stupidity.
This can also be applied to Star Wars.
Starwars doesn't need to be interpreted. Its western b-movie in scifi locale with fun characters and a pretty stark good vs evil plotline.
Donnie Darko leaves a lot left unsaid about what actually happened and, as a viewer, you get to create what you think happened and what it all means. This is ripped apart and farted upon by the director's actual idea of what is happening in his movie.
It isn't something that changed from conception to production, it is something that is "inherit" in the movie particularly once you know what it is.
I think Minority Report did a decent job of creating a realistic near-future, with a couple of exceptions. The future highway seemed a little bit much for a world only 50 or so years in the future.
I think a lot of science fiction movies tend to try and make the future too, well, futuristic.
Very true. I love it when a film is set just a little way into the future, so not much has changed. But why do they always change the cars in unreallistic ways? they did the same thing to iRobot
I think Minority Report did a decent job of creating a realistic near-future, with a couple of exceptions. The future highway seemed a little bit much for a world only 50 or so years in the future.
I think a lot of science fiction movies tend to try and make the future too, well, futuristic.
Very true. I love it when a film is set just a little way into the future, so not much has changed. But why do they always change the cars in unreallistic ways? they did the same thing to iRobot
The car thing is always weird to me. A car in 2011 would be recognizable as such to someone from 1951. But for some reason, cars in sci-fi movies set 20 years from now have morphed into a giant dildo or something.
I liked how the District of Columbia in Minority Report hadn't really changed. People had more advanced technology in their lives, but the District hadn't been turned into some cyberpunk world. People still lived in brownstones and held galas at the Kennedy Center.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I think Minority Report did a decent job of creating a realistic near-future, with a couple of exceptions. The future highway seemed a little bit much for a world only 50 or so years in the future.
I think a lot of science fiction movies tend to try and make the future too, well, futuristic.
The best near future movie to handle scifi for me is a scanner darkly.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I think I like Minority Report because it was risky for such a mainstream director to handle such a bleak and depressing story. Especially a Philip K Dick adaptation which isn't easy material.. I suppose I just respect that. I'll admit that there are some sloppy mistakes but honestly I'm entertained by it every time.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by cohesiveness with the world it creates..
Also it's true, he's inconsistent, but he's never boring.
Minority Report would have been a straight up, unquestionably good movie if it had just ended
when Cruise makes the decision not to murder the guy that killed his son. Ending it there gives a satisfying conclusion, while presenting new conundrums about the morality of the system they'd established. If he was able to choose the moral path, then what about the hundreds or even thousands that had come before him?
And what about those that come after him? The system has clearly saved a lot of lives from those that would have gone through with the murder. How do you balance free will and a shifting future, with the lives of innocents?
But then they had to fuck everything up and keep the movie going.
I think Minority Report did a decent job of creating a realistic near-future, with a couple of exceptions. The future highway seemed a little bit much for a world only 50 or so years in the future.
I think a lot of science fiction movies tend to try and make the future too, well, futuristic.
Very true. I love it when a film is set just a little way into the future, so not much has changed. But why do they always change the cars in unreallistic ways? they did the same thing to iRobot
The car thing is always weird to me. A car in 2011 would be recognizable as such to someone from 1951. But for some reason, cars in sci-fi movies set 20 years from now have morphed into a giant dildo or something.
I liked how the District of Columbia in Minority Report hadn't really changed. People had more advanced technology in their lives, but the District hadn't been turned into some cyberpunk world. People still lived in brownstones and held galas at the Kennedy Center.
The car thing is always stupid.
Which is funny cause it completely contrasts with the rest of the great imagery, as you point out. Look at europe for how the future will look. The old just sticks around with the new sort of crammed into the spaces where it can or needs to fit. We still live in houses from the 40s and 50s, we just update the interior a bit and jam big screen TVs in rooms that used to be for something else.
I always liked Half-Life 2's aesthetic on this front too.
I think I like Minority Report because it was risky for such a mainstream director to handle such a bleak and depressing story. Especially a Philip K Dick adaptation which isn't easy material.. I suppose I just respect that. I'll admit that there are some sloppy mistakes but honestly I'm entertained by it every time.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by cohesiveness with the world it creates..
Also it's true, he's inconsistent, but he's never boring.
Minority Report would have been a straight up, unquestionably good movie if it had just ended
when Cruise makes the decision not to murder the guy that killed his son. Ending it there gives a satisfying conclusion, while presenting new conundrums about the morality of the system they'd established. If he was able to choose the moral path, then what about the hundreds or even thousands that had come before him?
And what about those that come after him? The system has clearly saved a lot of lives from those that would have gone through with the murder. How do you balance free will and a shifting future, with the lives of innocents?
But then they had to fuck everything up and keep the movie going.
Putting aside the issue of enslaved psychics, why not use the system as a way to prevent murders without arresting people for pre-crime?
Sure, there are issues with punishing people for crimes they didn't commit. But I don't see any problems with using precognition to make sure that potential murder victims don't get killed. Just send a couple cops down to guard the future victim.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
Donnie Darko was a tone-perfect John Hughes-meets-mindfuck-sci-fi flick with a smart emphasis on the former. Donnie Darko: Director's Cut, from what I've heard, seems to have been put together by someone who doesn't understand what made the first cut work and focusing instead on the part that falls apart when you look at it too closely. I greatly like the film in the former version and am glad never to have seen the latter.
I wouldn't say it falls apart at all, it's just an unnecessary microscope pointed at part of the plot by literally putting words on the screen. it doesn't add anything and it clarifies in such a strange way that I don't think anything is gained and perhaps some things are lost.
I think Minority Report did a decent job of creating a realistic near-future, with a couple of exceptions. The future highway seemed a little bit much for a world only 50 or so years in the future.
I think a lot of science fiction movies tend to try and make the future too, well, futuristic.
The best near future movie to handle scifi for me is a scanner darkly.
Another Philip K Dick adaptation, and a very very good one!
I think I like Minority Report because it was risky for such a mainstream director to handle such a bleak and depressing story. Especially a Philip K Dick adaptation which isn't easy material.. I suppose I just respect that. I'll admit that there are some sloppy mistakes but honestly I'm entertained by it every time.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by cohesiveness with the world it creates..
Also it's true, he's inconsistent, but he's never boring.
Minority Report would have been a straight up, unquestionably good movie if it had just ended
when Cruise makes the decision not to murder the guy that killed his son. Ending it there gives a satisfying conclusion, while presenting new conundrums about the morality of the system they'd established. If he was able to choose the moral path, then what about the hundreds or even thousands that had come before him?
And what about those that come after him? The system has clearly saved a lot of lives from those that would have gone through with the murder. How do you balance free will and a shifting future, with the lives of innocents?
But then they had to fuck everything up and keep the movie going.
This is pretty much what I'm talking about in the paper i'm writing at the moment. Science fiction and how it contradicts its own bloody philosophies.
I agree with you about how it should've ended. But I do think
that the whole thing being a conspiracy orchestrated by the company's leader does add an extra element to the story. That any system claiming to help people can somehow be manipulated by those that know it well. And with regards to the morality thing, I find the conundrum over whether to give Anne Lively her daughter back, considering that she could save millions of lives, quite stirring... Obviously I wouldn't have killed her but I do wonder what I would have done in the CEO's situation
I think I like Minority Report because it was risky for such a mainstream director to handle such a bleak and depressing story. Especially a Philip K Dick adaptation which isn't easy material.. I suppose I just respect that. I'll admit that there are some sloppy mistakes but honestly I'm entertained by it every time.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by cohesiveness with the world it creates..
Also it's true, he's inconsistent, but he's never boring.
Minority Report would have been a straight up, unquestionably good movie if it had just ended
when Cruise makes the decision not to murder the guy that killed his son. Ending it there gives a satisfying conclusion, while presenting new conundrums about the morality of the system they'd established. If he was able to choose the moral path, then what about the hundreds or even thousands that had come before him?
And what about those that come after him? The system has clearly saved a lot of lives from those that would have gone through with the murder. How do you balance free will and a shifting future, with the lives of innocents?
But then they had to fuck everything up and keep the movie going.
Putting aside the issue of enslaved psychics, why not use the system as a way to prevent murders without arresting people for pre-crime?
Sure, there are issues with punishing people for crimes they didn't commit. But I don't see any problems with using precognition to make sure that potential murder victims don't get killed. Just send a couple cops down to guard the future victim.
Besides, at least the guy at the beginning with the scissors could be charged with attempted murder. There were problems with the method (I guess imprisoning three mind-damaged people isn't great), but one of them was the fact that they seemed to just lock the pre-murderers away without a trial. Just use it to get there, stop the murder, don't admit the pre-sight footage as evidence, just probable cause to enter or something.
Posts
This movie just reaffirms my high-regard for Steven Spielberg. His career has definitely earned him a spot among the greatest directors in hollywood. The man can tell a story :^:
DiCaprio's last line in the film really makes the whole thing great in my eyes
If anything was going to make me subscribe to "Death of the Author" it is Kelly's vision for DD.
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 know. I remember when it came out at Cannes and it got booed out of the theater.
A big part of me is morbidly curious and wants to see that 3+ hour cut.
This can also be a applied to the Boondock Saints.
Rigorous Scholarship
It depends. Sometimes an actor makes a part completely their own. Eisenberg's portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg isn't at all like the real character. Conversely, Jamie Foxx won an academy award for basically doing a very good impersonation of Ray Charles.
The former seems like it takes more "acting" skill than the latter.
Edit: on the subject of whether it's more difficult to act the part of a real person or not, I think the conversation is a complete non-starter. If anyone can show me a performance that is in no way based on existing people, a completely original performance that's supposed to depict a human being and that works for the audience, fantastic - until then I remain convinced that the discussion makes no sense whatsoever. And anyone involved in the theatre saying that playing 'real' people is more difficult than creating fictional people or vice versa is full of shit.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I quite like The Village, even after multiple viewings.
I agree. I'm currently doing a film studies degree and it annoys me how much Spielberg gets written off as a popular Hollywood director with little or no artistic merit. Sure he's popular, but that doesn't mean he dumbs things down. Minority Report is one of my favourite sci-fi's.
spielberg is and O-K director. he's made some really fabulous films and he's made some not so great mediocre efforts. more than anything i think he's inconsistent.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by cohesiveness with the world it creates..
Also it's true, he's inconsistent, but he's never boring.
I think a lot of science fiction movies tend to try and make the future too, well, futuristic.
Rigorous Scholarship
Starwars doesn't need to be interpreted. Its western b-movie in scifi locale with fun characters and a pretty stark good vs evil plotline.
Donnie Darko leaves a lot left unsaid about what actually happened and, as a viewer, you get to create what you think happened and what it all means. This is ripped apart and farted upon by the director's actual idea of what is happening in his movie.
It isn't something that changed from conception to production, it is something that is "inherit" in the movie particularly once you know what it is.
Very true. I love it when a film is set just a little way into the future, so not much has changed. But why do they always change the cars in unreallistic ways? they did the same thing to iRobot
I liked how the District of Columbia in Minority Report hadn't really changed. People had more advanced technology in their lives, but the District hadn't been turned into some cyberpunk world. People still lived in brownstones and held galas at the Kennedy Center.
Rigorous Scholarship
The best near future movie to handle scifi for me is a scanner darkly.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Minority Report would have been a straight up, unquestionably good movie if it had just ended
And what about those that come after him? The system has clearly saved a lot of lives from those that would have gone through with the murder. How do you balance free will and a shifting future, with the lives of innocents?
But then they had to fuck everything up and keep the movie going.
The car thing is always stupid.
Which is funny cause it completely contrasts with the rest of the great imagery, as you point out. Look at europe for how the future will look. The old just sticks around with the new sort of crammed into the spaces where it can or needs to fit. We still live in houses from the 40s and 50s, we just update the interior a bit and jam big screen TVs in rooms that used to be for something else.
I always liked Half-Life 2's aesthetic on this front too.
Sure, there are issues with punishing people for crimes they didn't commit. But I don't see any problems with using precognition to make sure that potential murder victims don't get killed. Just send a couple cops down to guard the future victim.
Rigorous Scholarship
I wouldn't say it falls apart at all, it's just an unnecessary microscope pointed at part of the plot by literally putting words on the screen. it doesn't add anything and it clarifies in such a strange way that I don't think anything is gained and perhaps some things are lost.
Another Philip K Dick adaptation, and a very very good one!
This is pretty much what I'm talking about in the paper i'm writing at the moment. Science fiction and how it contradicts its own bloody philosophies.
I agree with you about how it should've ended. But I do think
When cruise is apprehended and locked away. Nice and bleak.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Besides, at least the guy at the beginning with the scissors could be charged with attempted murder. There were problems with the method (I guess imprisoning three mind-damaged people isn't great), but one of them was the fact that they seemed to just lock the pre-murderers away without a trial. Just use it to get there, stop the murder, don't admit the pre-sight footage as evidence, just probable cause to enter or something.