IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

529 Pages V  « < 334 335 336 337 338 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Cinemexperience: part deux., Some more filums you saw.
Sostie
post Aug 25 2010, 09:01 AM
Post #5026


"Mus" gauche, "TANG"
******

Group: Senior Moderators
Posts: 15,567
Joined: 11-November 04
From: London
Member No.: 2,740



QUOTE (Serafina_Pekkala @ Aug 24 2010, 11:25 PM) *
I'm sorry I missed this at the cinema. Picts, Romans and Fassbender are 3 of my favourite things ever.


It also features Liam Cunningham, who would be in my fantasy Brit/Celt version of The Expendables.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ade
post Aug 25 2010, 09:33 AM
Post #5027


Ade Flanders
******

Group: Senior Moderators
Posts: 14,210
Joined: 2-October 04
From: the moment I could first write, I KNEW that I wanted to be an internet forum moderator...
Member No.: 2,296



QUOTE (Sostie @ Aug 25 2010, 10:01 AM) *
It also features Liam Cunningham, who would be in my fantasy Brit/Celt version of The Expendables.

The McXpendables?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Serafina_Pekkala
post Aug 25 2010, 10:38 AM
Post #5028


Money ...
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 11,440
Joined: 14-October 04
From: 14 carat yacht - what? (Going wow!)
Member No.: 2,511



QUOTE (Sostie @ Aug 25 2010, 10:01 AM) *
It also features Liam Cunningham, who would be in my fantasy Brit/Celt version of The Expendables.


This film sounds fucking magic already. I hope we get James 'presence is mandatory in any film set in Scotland' Cosmo and Mads Mikkelsen (buff). Maybe it could be the "Magic Bloodthirsty Adventures of C Chulainn whilst on holidays in Alba".

QUOTE
The McXpendables?


A craic Commando team.

*It's Cu-hoolan you English bastards. Or as Zoe said to me "i can't make those sounds"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
logger
post Aug 25 2010, 03:50 PM
Post #5029





Guests






QUOTE (Sostie @ Aug 25 2010, 10:00 AM) *
Not a bad thing. Jaws was a cheap airport thriller.

The film wasn't. It's in the execution.

QUOTE (Sostie @ Aug 25 2010, 10:00 AM) *
Personally can't agree with your other criticisms, but I have no idea where this one comes from.

Cheap, nasty, grubby, poor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maian
post Aug 26 2010, 10:57 AM
Post #5030


Bully for you
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 20,419
Joined: 25-February 05
From: behind a desk, sitting very still
Member No.: 3,498



Woodstock (1970/1994)

I had to stay in all day to wait for someone to come and reset our gas meter, so I decided to pop in the 3 hour 40 minute Director's Cut of this hugely influential documentary/concert film about the three days of love, peace and music in 1969.

Despite it's length (and the sheer number of filthy hippies spouting bullshit that crop up in interviews) I thought the time flew by. Obviously the large number of performances that make up the film help, but the trick is in the razor-sharp editing. It was overseen by Scorsese's long-term editor Thelma Schoonmaker - as well as by Scorsese himself, who also worked as an assistant director - and she and her team make great use of montage and split screen (so much split screen) to tell as much of the story of the festival as possible in purely visual terms, only occasionally stopping to interview to festival goers or the townspeople.

The way the film treated the townspeople and the "freaks" was very interesting, to me, since it seemed much more nuanced than I experted, suggesting that the film-makers were interested in capturing the event but didn't quite buy into the ideals of those taking part. I'm not sure how much of this was present in the original film, or if it was added in hindsight when they worked on the director's cut, but seeing the way in which the festival divided the townfolk (some people were for it, such as the chief of police who praises the behaviour of the participants, whilst the other side are represented by a man who describes it as a "shitty mess") or the way in which the film approaches the idealism of the hippies adds a level of complexity to it that I had not expected.

The real influence of the film can be seen in the way in which the musical performances are captured, and the way in which they have shaped the way all music broadcasts are captured today. Each performance has its own feel and rhythm dictated by the editing, and it adds to the performance of The Who, for example, to have Pete Townsend captured in a freeze frame and then set into motion as he prepares to hit a chord, or seeing the visual language of the film trying to approximate the woozy psychedelia of Hendrix's solos. It's a masterclass in how to use editing to give extra life and power to an already exhilarating performance.

Good, but more interesting as a snapshot of a time and for its influence than as a film in its own right.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maian
post Aug 26 2010, 06:52 PM
Post #5031


Bully for you
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 20,419
Joined: 25-February 05
From: behind a desk, sitting very still
Member No.: 3,498



Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

It was like sex for the eyes.

I had a huge goofy grin on my face from the moment the Universal logo appeared rendered in SNES graphics, and it was still there an hour and fifty minutes later.

I think I'm in lesbians with this film.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
logger
post Aug 26 2010, 08:02 PM
Post #5032





Guests






I can't believe how wrong they've got the marketing for this. It could have been one of the biggest films of the summer. Even if it doesn't do great at the box office it is going to be a massive film over the coming years.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maian
post Aug 26 2010, 08:33 PM
Post #5033


Bully for you
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 20,419
Joined: 25-February 05
From: behind a desk, sitting very still
Member No.: 3,498



I think it was always destined to be a cult film. It's very idiosyncratic (in the best possible way) and you couldn't get across in a 30 second advert (or even a 2 minute trailer) what makes the film so special. The obvious downside of being a cult film is that it has to fail in the first place, but I think it'll only grow as time goes on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Atara
post Aug 26 2010, 11:05 PM
Post #5034


Addict
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 7,772
Joined: 9-January 06
Member No.: 4,814



Scott Pilgrim vs The World has made me insane with joy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Serafina_Pekkala
post Aug 27 2010, 09:13 AM
Post #5035


Money ...
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 11,440
Joined: 14-October 04
From: 14 carat yacht - what? (Going wow!)
Member No.: 2,511



I totally missed this joy train, clearly. I blame Michael Cera. The Canadian goose. I don't like him.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maian
post Aug 27 2010, 04:50 PM
Post #5036


Bully for you
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 20,419
Joined: 25-February 05
From: behind a desk, sitting very still
Member No.: 3,498



I was wondering if anyone could clarify something about Scott Pilgrim for me. It's only a little question about a really quick sight gag, but I don't want to accidentally cause people who haven't yet seen the film to be distracted by looking out for it, so I'll put it in spoilers.

When Scott spells out SUX on the fridge, then turns an 8 on its side to create the symbol of infinity, then he says that 'everything' sucks, is that actually the correct use of that symbol? This might be veering into philosophy or etymology, but I always thought there was a difference between the concepts of 'infinity' and 'everything'. Good gag either way, but it got me wondering and I'm curious to know the answer.


This post has been edited by maian: Aug 27 2010, 05:00 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
logger
post Aug 27 2010, 06:10 PM
Post #5037





Guests






I think philosophically it works, I have no idea if scientifically there is a problem, I suppose 'everything' is a very unscientific concept, but I would just like to that add you're a massive nerd. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jessopjessopjess...
post Aug 28 2010, 09:49 AM
Post #5038


You do scribble
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 14,968
Joined: 7-October 04
From: East
Member No.: 2,423



QUOTE (Serafina_Pekkala @ Aug 25 2010, 11:38 AM) *
A craic Commando team.

Superb.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
logger
post Aug 28 2010, 10:53 AM
Post #5039





Guests






Four Lions

Proper rubber dingy rapids.

And I didn't really get the weetabix joke at the end when Omar's brother is being questioned at the end and wondered if I'd missed something or was the joke just that they were threatening him with weetabix?

Also, it's weird that I didn't think it was poignant or meant to be about anything other than the gags but everybody else does.

This post has been edited by logger: Aug 28 2010, 11:15 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jon 79
post Aug 28 2010, 10:59 AM
Post #5040


Dreaming my life...
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 3,593
Joined: 3-October 04
From: Lots of different places.
Member No.: 2,336



QUOTE (maian @ Aug 28 2010, 04:50 AM) *
I was wondering if anyone could clarify something about Scott Pilgrim for me. It's only a little question about a really quick sight gag, but I don't want to accidentally cause people who haven't yet seen the film to be distracted by looking out for it, so I'll put it in spoilers.

When Scott spells out SUX on the fridge, then turns an 8 on its side to create the symbol of infinity, then he says that 'everything' sucks, is that actually the correct use of that symbol? This might be veering into philosophy or etymology, but I always thought there was a difference between the concepts of 'infinity' and 'everything'. Good gag either way, but it got me wondering and I'm curious to know the answer.

I read that as an infinite number of things suck. That works for me.
I saw the film again last night. I noticed new things ...sound effects and suchlike, that i may've missed the first time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

529 Pages V  « < 334 335 336 337 338 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th April 2014 - 07:20 AM