Cinemexperience: part deux., Some more filums you saw. Options

[logger]

The Daily Mirror said "if you liked Garden State you'll love this". It's not that bad is it?

They also said you'd like Broken Embraces if you liked Vicky Christina Barcelona, y'know, because they've both got Penelope Cruz in and they're both set in Spain.

[maian]

The Daily Mirror said "if you liked Garden State you'll love this". It's not that bad is it?

I wouldn't say it was that bad but I wasn't all that bothered about it. It's diverting and has some genuinely terrific moments in it but it is basically just a mainstream romcom with some Smiths references in it.

Punch-Drunk Love

I've been thinking a lot recently about what films I would put in a ''Top 10 of the decade'' list, and this would probably make the cut. Endlessly fascinating.


Horton Hears A Who!

Probably wouldn't make it onto any Top 10, but an enjoyable enough little film. Jim Carrey is just a tad annoying as Horton but the film as a whole has a good stab at translating the free-flowing sense of imagination that Dr. Suess' books have into a visual experience. The sequences in Whoville, in particular, are brimming with invention.

This post has been edited by maian: Sep 8 2009, 06:43 PM

[Kick in the Head]

District 9
This not helped by the lead character Wikus who is essentially Flight of the Conchords' Murray played only slightly more straight.

[REC]
The conceit that someone continues to film events with a handheld camera despite great danger to themselves and others brings to mind last years' Cloverfield, but in this instance is even less probable. And this is the film's main weakness. There are a number of times that Pablo the cameraman would just drop the bloody thing and leg it. But he doesn't, and it removes the credibility and reality the technique otherwise provides.

I thought exactly the same about Wikus.

As for [REC] v Cloverfield camera-keep-rolling comparisons, how is [REC] even less probable? Pablo's a professional cameraman while Cloverfield's Hud is not, so surely he'd have a greater impulse to keep filming? Particularly when the event in question is localised, Pablo's trapped with the only camera, whereas Cloverfield takes place in a city with millions, many presumably armed with cameras, with widespread news channel coverage, so Hud would be the one more likely to drop and run in the full knowledge he's not the only one.

Back on track, I concur with others about the ending. It's pretty standard stuff for the most part, but the last 20 minutes are relentless and thrilling, and the reveal that it's not a bio-weapon or toxin or genetic mutation but PURE DISTILLED EVIL that's the cause of the outbreak just tickled me in a way that a more conventional conclusion wouldn't have. Watching the whole penthouse scene shit me right up like nothing else since the end of Ringu.

[maian]

There's also the idea that, in a stressful situation, people would keep filming as a kind of defense system. Watching events through a viewfinder would allow them to distance themselves from what is going on, probably to their detriment.

[logger]

Plus if the cameraman stopped filming there would be no film.

[fatseff1234]

I have just sat and watched The Dark Knight.

I have No Country For Old Men to sit and enjoy now. Will I enjoy it?

[logger]

I have No Country For Old Men to sit and enjoy now. Will I enjoy it?

It's the best film of the 21st century, in my opinion. I didn't like Dark Knight though.

[ipse dixit]

Re. the filming thing, I think with Cloverfield the characters are observers in the midst of something (albeit very dangerous) happening, which offers some element of detachment, whereas in [Rec], it's a more immediate and confined threat where they are the definite target. Pablo's professionalism is likely to make him keep filming up to a point, but there are a couple of moments (closing the shutter and searching for the keys) when he could and arguably should have put it on the floor, as he does to help kill the girl on the stairs. I thought the power outage would've happened sooner to give more justification to the camera..

[Jessopjessopjess...]

As for [REC] v Cloverfield camera-keep-rolling comparisons, how is [REC] even less probable?

I think mainly because of the nature of the threat. With all the action in [REC] taking place in close quarters, your flight defense would cause you to drop everything and run. In Cloverfield the danger is on a bigger scale (aside from the subway attack), so Hud is seeing things from a distance, literally.

Watching events through a viewfinder would allow them to distance themselves from what is going on, probably to their detriment.

That's the kind of thing a film student would say. It's an interesting conceit but not especially believable. I know people do strange things when they're stressed or in danger, like filming 9/11 and the aftermath, but if a blood-thirsty zombie was running at you full pelt you wouldn't swivel round to film the door slam in its face.

[maian]

That's the kind of thing a film student would say.

Or Charlie Brooker.

It's an interesting conceit but not especially believable. I know people do strange things when they're stressed or in danger, like filming 9/11 and the aftermath, but if a blood-thirsty zombie was running at you full pelt you wouldn't swivel round to film the door slam in its face.

No, obviously. But my point was that it has a psychological basis, as displayed by the way people filmed 9/11 and the aftermath or, even more fantastically, the way that people who were caught up in the London Bombings filmed whilst they were still trapped in the carriages. They are extrapolating the idea to a degree that pushes the boundaries of believability but that does not mean that the idea itself lacks merit.

This post has been edited by maian: Sep 9 2009, 10:05 AM

[Jessopjessopjess...]

They are extrapolating the idea to a degree that pushes the boundaries of believability but that does not mean that the idea itself lacks merit.

Of course, it's a great concept but also a weakness. It's an incredibly immersive technique, but being put so squarely in the shoes of the characters involves makes one question their motivations even more closely, and become more easily jolted out of the experience once they do something unrealistic. It's a delicate balance that I think Cloverfield achieved better than [REC] for the reasons I mentioned, but which hasn't been bettered since The Blair Witch Project.

[Zoe]

That 9/11 thing was fucked. I was flicking channels and saw about 5 seconds of amateur footage (zoomed in) of bodies falling like dolls, it made me feel ill. It was on for over two hours, truly epic rubbernecking.

'Rachel Getting Married' (2008)

The most pretentious wedding of all time.

A quietly striking and beautiful piece of cinema whose performances resonate long after the credits have rolled. I'm sure lots of people hated it, but I found it compelling, melancholy, truthful and very skillfully shot and edited. The relatively short time span works very well, and afterwards I actually felt as if I'd been to a wedding. Thankfully my own sibling's was slightly less disfunctional.

What's memorable, in a film about addiction, is that resentment, selfishness and guilt is ultimately conquered by love. This is summed up in the tenderness of a scene where Rachel bathes her damaged little sister which had me close to tears.

Anne Hathaway deserves all the praise she received. Her true talent is obvious not when she's screaming or shouting, but in a glance. Her reactions are subtle, telling and brilliant.

Demme is a beautiful director and Jenny Lumet's script is a more than worthy subject.

Recommended

[maian]

'Rachel Getting Married' (2008)

The most pretentious wedding of all time.

A quietly striking and beautiful piece of cinema whose performances resonate long after the credits have rolled. I'm sure lots of people hated it, but I found it compelling, melancholy, truthful and very skillfully shot and edited. The relatively short time span works very well, and afterwards I actually felt as if I'd been to a wedding. Thankfully my own sibling's was slightly less disfunctional.

What's memorable, in a film about addiction, is that resentment, selfishness and guilt is ultimately conquered by love. This is summed up in the tenderness of a scene where Rachel bathes her damaged little sister which had me close to tears.

Anne Hathaway deserves all the praise she received. Her true talent is obvious not when she's screaming or shouting, but in a glance. Her reactions are subtle, telling and brilliant.

Demme is a beautiful director and Jenny Lumet's script is a more than worthy subject.

Recommended

Me, for one, though I honestly can't remember why. I think it was the last twenty minutes or so that did it for me. The opening hour I found really fascinating, but once we got to the wedding I, quite literally, had my head in my hands and was rocking back and forth, praying for it to end.

[Zoe]

The wedding was ludicrous (ly pretentious), but it did feel like a real wedding and they felt like a real family and I did care about them.

I can genuinely say I'd like to go to a reception where Robyn Hitchock played before a samba troupe crashed in.

[maian]

The wedding was ludicrous (ly pretentious), but it did feel like a real wedding and they felt like a real family and I did care about them.

I can genuinely say I'd like to go to a reception where Robyn Hitchock played before a samba troupe crashed in.

That would probably be my problem with it, since I'm really not someone who enjoys weddings, so having to watch a film that tries to portray a wedding realistically is tantamount to purgatory, for me.

I think that my problems with the film are entirely with me, since everything else about the film, I like. I think the actors are all terrific, Demme's direction is great and the film is very interesting, I just can't get past my own dislike of weddings.