Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Cinemexperience: part deux.
Spaced Out Forum > Media > Media
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
Sostie
QUOTE (bigfatrich @ Jul 13 2011, 01:25 PM) *
Cock juggling thundercunt



You are of course. But really it's all about the thundercunt.
maian
Last Year at Marienbad (1961)

Elliptical and obtuse mystery film by Alain Resnais in which a man and a woman (who have no names in the film, but are referred to as X and A in the screenplay) meet at a large summer house. During the course of the film, X tries to persuade A that they had met the year before, fell in love, and that she told him to meet her there a year later. Despite the evidence he presents to her, A is reluctant to leave her husband, and as X becomes more insistent the line between truth and reality becomes increasingly blurred.

I'm really not sure how I feel about this one. It's kind of a funhouse mirror of a film, in that anyone looking into it will see something different reflected back. I approached it from a purely narrative standpoint, and tried to piece together the various fragments of plot and dialogue to form a story that made sense to me, which I eventually did, but I feel that isn't the right approach at all. It's not a film with a mystery that the audience has to solve, though it doesn't dissuade them from trying, but to be appreciated as an experiment in taking a fairly straightforward story and treating it in a manner which activately questions and violates the basic language of film. In that sense it's almost a horror film, since the disorientating way that it uses music and images creates a uneasy tension that isn't helped by the punishing use of organ music throughout.

I don't know if I liked it, but the more I think about it, the more I go from thinking "Well, I'm glad I saw it" to "I must watch that again."
mcraigclark
QUOTE (Sostie @ Jul 13 2011, 01:40 PM) *
You are of course. But really it's all about the thundercunt.

It's always about the thundercunt.

I watched The Goonies on Monday. Its difficult to express how much love I have for that film.
Sostie
QUOTE (Sostie @ Jul 13 2011, 06:40 PM) *
You are of course. But really it's all about the thundercunt.



That should read "you are of course correct". Nearly sounded very rude to you there bigfatrich.
Sostie
After.Life
A victim of a car accident, Christina Ricci, wakes up on a mortician's slab. Believing she is still alive, the mortician, Liam Neeson, tries to convince her that she is actually dead and that he has a special gift of being able to converse with the deceased. Meanwhile, her boyfriend, Justin Long, is trying to cope with her sudden death.
Odd little film that tries to be a little bit deep and a little bit twisty, but ends up being a little bit bemusing.
On the plus side Ricci spends a large chunk of the film nekkid.
Silky
QUOTE (Sostie @ Jul 14 2011, 10:19 AM) *
On the plus side Ricci spends a large chunk of the film nekkid.

Sold! happy.gif
dandan
QUOTE (Sostie @ Jul 13 2011, 10:37 AM) *
More Jason Flemyng would have been nice.


this applies to every film.
Silky
QUOTE (dandan @ Jul 14 2011, 12:21 PM) *
this applies to every film.

He's enjoyable in Ironclad.
dandan
it's about time i watched 'atomic circus' again; flemyng, paradis, poelvoorde and aliens...
Ade
QUOTE (dandan @ Jul 14 2011, 12:29 PM) *
flemyng, paradis, poelvoorde and aliens...

...which is enough to sell any film.
dandan
QUOTE (Ade @ Jul 14 2011, 12:33 PM) *
...which is enough to sell any film.


i think the only release with english subs is the out of print thai disc - a crime, really...

still, if you can't find a download and you want a copy, then let me know via the book of faces and i'll po one in the post for you...
GundamGuy_UK
Starship Troopers - God, I love this movie. It's just SO good. It holds up really well, too; the effects are just stunning even today. The political satire is still relevant, and it's just a damn good flick.
NiteFall
Plus it has Neil Patrick Harris as a psychic space Nazi. I'll watch almost anything with NPH in though if I'm honest.
Sir_Robin_the_brave
The extremely badly censored gory TV bits are my favourite.
maian
QUOTE (NiteFall @ Jul 14 2011, 04:00 PM) *
Plus it has Neil Patrick Harris as a psychic space Nazi. I'll watch almost anything with NPH in though if I'm honest.


I think this means that you've now committed yourself to watching Beastly (in which he plays a blind man!) and The Smurfs (in which he picks up a paycheck). Bad luck, Kei.

There was a double-bill of Jean Luc-Godard films at my work today, so with nothing better to do I watched the following:

Alphaville (1965)

Science fiction/noir hybrid in which Lemmy Caution (Eddie Constantine), an American secret agent, arrives at the city of Alphaville with the intention of killing or kidnapping Professor von Braun (Howard Vernon), the chief architect of the giant supercomputer that governs all life in Alphaville, rooting out all illogical thought and behaviour. Along the way, Lemmy meets and falls in love with von Braun's daughter, Natacha (Anna Karina) and tries to convince her of the horror of the world in which she has grown up.

An interesting collection of ideas about art, language and humanity that never quite coalesces around the detective story that is meant to provide its heart and structure. Godard doesn't really establish the rules of the world so it's hard to really tell what effect, if any, Lemmy's actions actually have, and whilst this gives the film a sense of playful absurdity, it also makes it hard to really care about what is going.


Pierrot le Fou (1965)

Ferdinand (Jean-Paul Belmondo) is a man living a fairly boring life until the day he decides to run off with Marianne (Anna Karina), a young woman from her past. The two tear across France, stealing cars, getting chased by henchmen and generally living life in a state of giddy, feverish delight.

A much better Godard all round. Whereas Alphaville felt frustratingly restrained and austere, Pierrot le Fou hums with life and a sense of fun as Belmondo and Karina, two of the coolest screen presences ever, relish the opportunity to place archetypal outlaws, spending their time discussion art and love, and generally being incredibly French. The film is all together much more exhilarating than Alphaville since Godard plays with form and goes out of his way to ensure that the film remains interesting; the film switches genre halfway through, something that the characters acknowledge in their frequent nods to camera, Ferdinand and Marianne break into song occasionally, and there's an inventiveness on display that makes for some unexpectedly hilarious scenes, such as one in which they act out the Vietnam war for money, despite Ferdinand knowing precisely five phrases: Yeah, Sure, New York, Hollywood, Communist.

Kind of silly, but charmingly so.
widowspider
QUOTE (maian @ Jul 14 2011, 09:40 PM) *
I think this means that you've now committed yourself to watching Beastly (in which he plays a blind man!) and The Smurfs (in which he picks up a paycheck). Bad luck, Kei.

My friend Roger (who is a local news reporter in New York) is also in the Smurfs movie, playing - guess what - a local news reporter.
dandan
QUOTE (Hobbes @ Jul 8 2011, 06:41 PM) *
Lots of people will say this is "pretentious shit". But this label is not only reductive, it's lazy. Malick is setting out to create art here, not a piece of popcorn entertainment, and he succeeds in doing so masterfully. Even if it's art you don't particularly enjoy or which doesn't connect with you in any way, blithely dismissing it as 'up itself' or similar is only a veil for saying that you didn't like it. Not everyone likes the same novels, but you can appreciate (in most cases, not all I'll admit) the will and vision it took to write them, even if you thought it was a rubbish book.

Forgive the rather large hyperbole, but people probably thought the Sistine Chapel ceiling was a pretentious vanity project as well. This is not the Sistine Chapel ceiling, for sure, but it's still worthy of greater attention than offhand pithiness can afford. You really have to overlook such a facile term in some instances, and this is one of them. This does not feel like art for art's sake, it feels like an artist fully investigating and exploring an intangible subject which fascinates him. Why that should be considered 'pretentious' is beyond me. Might as well tell Derek Walcott to put his pen away.


in essence, my response to this would be to blow a raspberry...

malick does, indeed, have an artistic vision and, thanks to the money and sway of brad pitt, he has brought his vision to the big screen. eventually. the film is quite beautiful to watch, both for emmanuel lubezki's cinematography and the sequences that douglas trumbull contributed. actually, it is quite beautiful to watch, except for the extremely poor cgi dinosaur scene. i also enjoyed the meandering narrative structure but, i'm afraid, beyond these points, and a cast who performed well enough with what they were given, i found the whole affair vacuous.

the stylisation is all well and good, although the final result makes the film feel as it it were a two hour and twenty minute advert for a bank or investment house. some might say it is masturbation over meditation, and i'd probably say that it certainly ends up being closer to the former, rather than the latter, as i'm sure malick intended. for me, the biggest problem with the film is trite, hackneyed americana conceit of the over-bearing father ("don't call me dad"), the pushover mother and the kid growing up confused, oedipal and unable to express emotion. i also have a couple of issues with the sound design, not being a fan of the detached sound bites, which i found quite irksome and i wasn't a huge fan of alexandre desplat's score. i usually do quite like his work too.

so, unlike the sistine chapel which, since its creation has been heralded not only as a magnificent technical achievement, but a major aesthetic milestone which helped usher in a new era of art, malick creates the packaging, at times stunning packaging, that contains little more than a few very basic, very base ideas, which are given over with only the most surface level of exploration and perfunctory meditation.
logger
The New World

Kind of liked it but it did remind me of how disappointed I was with The Thin Red Line the one time I watched that. I preferred this to TTRL but it doesn't even compare to Badlands and Days of Heaven. I did enjoy most of it though, especially the final hour and Q'orianka Kilcher is brilliant as Pocahontas, I was amazed to see she was only 15 at the time, not only does she look older but displays a maturity far beyond her years.

QUOTE (dandan @ Jul 14 2011, 09:51 PM) *
the stylisation is all well and good, although the final result makes the film feel as it it were a two hour and twenty minute advert for a bank or investment house. some might say it is masturbation over meditation, and i'd probably say that it certainly ends up being closer to the former, rather than the latter, as i'm sure malick intended.

i also have a couple of issues with the sound design, not being a fan of the detached sound bites, which i found quite irksome.

I kind of had these problems with The New World.
NiteFall
QUOTE (maian @ Jul 14 2011, 09:40 PM) *
I think this means that you've now committed yourself to watching Beastly (in which he plays a blind man!) and The Smurfs (in which he picks up a paycheck). Bad luck, Kei.


I did say almost. Even I have my limits. Although they are rather nebulous, as evidenced by the fact that I wasted a chunk of my life watching Fast 5 last night. which surprised me by actually being a fun little heist movie. With a fist fight between Vin Diesel and The Rock. Although it did make me realise just how much Vin Diesel's head looks like a potato.
Hobbes
dandan, I understand your reasoned concerns, even if I do steadfastly disagree with many of them.

RE:The Sistine Chapel, I was just trying to use it as an example of a piece of art which also reflected the uncompromising vision of its creator, not saying that the two are directly comparable as far as artistic merit goes. Sorry if I phrased it poorly initially.

I think that even if the film isn't entirely to your tastes it's worthy of praise for exploring a topic which no-one else would touch; whether or not Malick succeeds in doing so is entirely subjective, but I think it's laudable to attempt to get it off the ground, or to even have the idea in the first place. If Brad Pitt is as responsible for the film coming into being as you've suggested (I have fuck all clue about backroom movie financing/politics-type stuff so I'll defer entirely to you on that) then I applaud him too for wanting to be a part of it.

The dinosaur bit is unnecessary and quite rubbish, I agree, and I also concur that the detached voiceovers became quite annoying as the movie wore on. Yet I thought of these more as blemishes on an otherwise fascinating whole. I'm also quite surprised you didn't like Desplat's score, I thought it was fantastic, and I'm not someone who usually picks up on movie scores.

However, to address your biggest issue, if I may:

QUOTE (dandan @ Jul 14 2011, 09:51 PM) *
for me, the biggest problem with the film is trite, hackneyed americana conceit of the over-bearing father ("don't call me dad"), the pushover mother and the kid growing up confused, oedipal and unable to express emotion.


You're right that it is a trodden path, but from my perspective this was being used as a cipher to talk about wider experience. I can't speak to Malick's actual reasoning, but what I surmised was that we were meant to recognise these situations, that these are universal experiences – the kid warring with both parents, committing random acts of rebellion, suffering the ignominy of punishment and confusion – in order to evoke real memories in the minds of the audience. The way the sequences are shot make them feel like memories, so when the camera lingers on a plant or a street or whatever, we can relate to the sense memory of Jack as he remembers it from fifty-odd years down the line.

The entire film is dealing with fundamentally unanswerable questions, and the message it left me with was that personal experience leads you at least some way to these truths, thus the messages behind the sparse sequences of narrative are meant to reveal themselves to the audience based on individual experiences, instead of targeting the lowest-common-denominator emotions that sappier incarnations of the same plot often try to.

I'm not trying to say that this is one of the greatest films ever made or anything. But I thought it was excellent. To me, it seemed like Malick was saying "this is how I see the world, and this is how I think we manage to at least partially grasp the truths that elude us". They felt like the genuine beliefs of the filmmaker, and I couldn't help but be affected by what he said, even if I had heard some of it before. I think to accuse this film of being empty-hearted or vacuous is to as a consequence accuse Malick himself of being the same in making it, which I really don't think is the case. By contrast, I think this is one of the more earnest, sincere films I've seen for a long while.

For me, someone actually using cinema for such a purpose was refreshing.
dandan
QUOTE (Hobbes @ Jul 14 2011, 11:07 PM) *
dandan, I understand your reasoned concerns, even if I do steadfastly disagree with many of them.


interestingly, michaelangelo, didn't want the sistine chapel commission; he felt intimidated by the scale, thought it served only papal decadence and distracted him from the work he wanted to do (sculpture). not that has any bearing on my thoughts on 'the tree of life'.

i'm a little puzzled about what you think the topic no-one else would touch is. directors have always made films about their faith, belief and religion.

from what i recall, the film had numerous producers and actors (mel gibson, for one) attached to it over the past few years and no real progress was made until pitt came on board as star / producer. even then, the distribution seems to have been an issue and a struggle to release it. a recent interview with pitt had him stating his worry that people would think that he was a supporter of the film's religious overtones; he stated that this was not the case, he simply wanted to support malick's vision, even if he didn't agree with his outlook.

as for the rest of your post...

the film is rumination of christian ideas, a meditation on both the origin of life and an examination of the fundamentals of humanity through the emotions of love and loss. i'd say you're right to suggest that the film is shot to resemble memory and that the method it chooses is analogous in nature. i'd also say that i didn't suggest that this wasn't the case and would stand by my original statement completely - just because he's using these situations as a cipher, it doesn't make them any less tired, trite and hackneyed. maybe i should have spelt out before. but, whatever, the thing that kinda didn't sit well with me was your assertion that anyone who didn't like this film couldn't dismiss it as pretentious shit, as that would be lazy.
Hobbes
Interesting points RE: Michaelangelo, I had no idea about that so thus endeth any possible metaphor.

The topic I was referring to was that handling of life's meaning, specifically from an abstract/impressionistic viewpoint. I can't really think of many other directors who have tried to perform such a feat on camera either now or in the past – Jodorowsky, Bergman perhaps? – or of many who would try to do so. Whilst I totally agree that lots of filmmakers have made films about their beliefs before, I struggle to think of many who have explored essentially the fabric of existence using such a method.

QUOTE (dandan @ Jul 15 2011, 08:09 AM) *
from what i recall, the film had numerous producers and actors (mel gibson, for one) attached to it over the past few years and no real progress was made until pitt came on board as star / producer. even then, the distribution seems to have been an issue and a struggle to release it. a recent interview with pitt had him stating his worry that people would think that he was a supporter of the film's religious overtones; he stated that this was not the case, he simply wanted to support malick's vision, even if he didn't agree with his outlook.


Had no idea about any of this, but very interesting to hear the backstory, especially about Gibson. He and Malick would've made for an interesting (if probably unsuccessful) marriage.

QUOTE (dandan @ Jul 15 2011, 08:09 AM) *
the film is rumination of christian ideas, a meditation on both the origin of life and an examination of the fundamentals of humanity through the emotions of love and loss. i'd say you're right to suggest that the film is shot to resemble memory and that the method it chooses is analogous in nature. i'd also say that i didn't suggest that this wasn't the case and would stand by my original statement completely - just because he's using these situations as a cipher, it doesn't make them any less tired, trite and hackneyed.


Interesting. I guess I felt that the family situation was used and shot in such a way that it made me forgive its triter shortcomings, or at least made me look at them from a different perspective than I had before. I would defend his choice of a recognisable family dynamic because it created an uncanny, at times unsettling atmosphere for the characters to move around in, which I enjoyed. That classic conflict between the idyllic location, seemingly perfect lives and the troubles and strife going on behind closed doors has always resonated with me so perhaps it's simply an extension of that. Most of my favourite novels and authors use a similar conceit or plot point somewhere.

QUOTE (dandan @ Jul 15 2011, 08:09 AM) *
but, whatever, the thing that kinda didn't sit well with me was your assertion that anyone who didn't like this film couldn't dismiss it as pretentious shit, as that would be lazy.


What I meant was that there will be swathes of people who chime in with blithe, pithy one-line summations of the film, "pretentious shit" being an example I've seen knocking around on the internet in a bunch of places, and that's what I find to be lazy; although re-reading my initial comments I realise they read rather more sanctimoniously than I'd intended, so apologies for that. 'Pretentious shit' is just an example of the kind of reductive one-liner that this film is bound to attract and does not deserve. You may not agree with me about parts of the film, but you're actually explaining why you feel that way where it would be easier and quicker to be super-blasé. People are too quick to dismiss art in my estimation, when the whole point of it is consideration and thought; opinion should be just that, not a series of nonchalant remarks.

It's not my intention to try and forbid people from thinking what they want, God forbid I should come across that way, but I think that The Tree of Life deserves more discussion and well-reasoned debate than pithy commentary or one-line dismissal can afford it. In fact I'd go further and say that most movies of any merit whatsoever deserve more than that.
dandan
you're a good egg luke...
widowspider
This debate has now made me want to see the film. Well done Luke and dandan!
logger
Half of The Thin Red Line

The Phantom Malick.

I'm not so bothered about seeing The Tree of Life anymore.
Hobbes
QUOTE (dandan @ Jul 15 2011, 11:38 AM) *
you're a good egg luke...


As are you, dan. Been called many things, think this is the first time for "good egg" though.
maian
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two (2011)

Great. Having got all the set up out of the way in Part One, Part Two is, barring a bit of place setting at the start, pretty relentless. It's set piece after set piece, with The Battle of Hogwarts being particularly epic and impressive, but it also handles the character moments very nicely (Alan Rickman, in particular, does a superb job with Snape's arc).

The epilogue at the end is still in, and depending on how you felt about it in the book (I didn't mind it) then you'll probably feel the same. Mostly, the film is most successful at feeling like a real conclusion to the story, with enough nods to the iconography of the series to make it feel as if all the strands are coming together into a cohesive whole.

A fitting end to the saga.
ipse dixit
QUOTE (maian @ Jul 15 2011, 05:11 PM) *
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two (2011)

It's out today! *happy dance all the way to the pub*
maian
Oh, something I forgot to mention; it's a hell of a lot brighter than the last couple. I think to counteract the dimming effect of the 3D conversion, they've lightened all of the colours, so if anyone goes to see it in 2D (and you should because 3D is expensive and teh eval) then it looks really shiny and nice.
Atara
I just got back from it and it was really bloody great. The projector was a tad out of focus throughout which was irritating at times.

Neville and Mrs Weasley got huge cheers and Snapes part was fantastic. I was a bit pit out with part one but as a whole I think they'll balance out very well.
Hobbes
I saw it last night, very solid finale I thought. Ending is still shit, but the rest of it was pretty good I thought. What helped is that Rickman is bloody excellent, his long sequence in the final third is great, probably the highlight for me.
Sostie
The Tournament
Robert Carlyle, Kelly Hu and Ving Rahms are caught up in a Battle Royale for international assassins...in Middlesborough! Also in there is Boone from Lost as a total nutter, the free running guy from Casino Royale and Andy Nyman with an American accent. Lots of indescriminate killing and car chases ensue, including one involving a double decker bus, which for me have always been underused in action films. A fairly entertaining, violent, bloody curiosity.
Jon 79
The Tree Of Life

Such a beautiful film. ... completely ruined for the first 45 minutes by some old bastard constantly talking to himself on the front row. Probably the worst sort of film for that to happen. Just as I'm witnessing the birth of our galaxy, there's some cockney nut-job rustling a plastic bag and loudly convincing himself he really needs to buy some binoculars. He left half way through the film.

I enjoyed many of the moments within the film, but it definitely requires another watch.
maian
Spirit of the Beehive (1973)

Spanish film set in 1940 in which a young girl named Ana starts to retreat into a fantasy world after watching "Frankenstein". As she comes to believe that Frankenstein's Monster is real and is in fact a spirit living in her village, her conniving sister plays increasingly mean and vindictive jokes on her, whilst her parents spend their lives apart; her father tends to his bees and ruminates on their nature, and her mother writes letters to an ex-lover who may or may not ever read them.

Made in the last years of Franco's rule, set immediately after it started, Spirit of the Beehive is a really interesting examination of Spain in the immediate post-war period. Using the fractured, increasingly distant family dynamic (there are no scenes in the film in which the entire family is in the same shot; even when they have dinner together they each occupy their own space) it examines the tensions that lay underneath the surface of Spanish life under Fascism. At the same time, it tells a really engaging story about a young girl's inner life as she tries to come to terms with the trauma around her, and it does so in a way which is creepy, ethereal and kind of magical. (In that respect, it's not difficult to see how much of an influence the film was on Pan's Labyrinth.)


Taste of Cherry (1997)

Iranian film by Abbas Kiarostami in which a man who has decided to kill himself drives around asking strangers if they will help him by agreeing to fill in the hole in which he plans to lay down and die. As he meets people from all walks of life, the man engages in a series of conversations about life and death, particularly the little things that make life something worth holding on to.

I really didn't know what to expect of this, having never seen a Kiarostami film and being a little trepidatious based on the plot synopsis, but I found it very entertaining. The film takes place almost entirely in the main character's car and is composed almost solely of conversations, but each of those conversations feels truthful and exciting, with their rhythms and themes which the actors explore beautifully. It's the sort of film that is almost effortlessly profound, in that the dramatic side is so engrossing that the thematic significance of it is feels almost incidental, rather than like it is being crammed down your throat.
Sostie
Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels
Not seen it in quite a while and thoroughly enjoted it.
Llama
QUOTE (Hobbes @ Jul 16 2011, 02:41 PM) *
What helped is that Rickman is bloody excellent, his long sequence in the final third is great, probably the highlight for me.

Very much so.

I really enjoyed it also, and spectacular to look at as well.
sweetbutinsane
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part Two)

The beginning felt a little clunky to me but it got better quickly.

Is it weird that I felt a little sorry for Voldy sometimes? Poor Voldy.
Rebus
Why the hell have I never seen Crank before!? That was hilariously awesome.
empathy-with-beast
QUOTE (maian @ Jul 15 2011, 05:11 PM) *
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two (2011)

Great. Having got all the set up out of the way in Part One, Part Two is, barring a bit of place setting at the start, pretty relentless. It's set piece after set piece, with The Battle of Hogwarts being particularly epic and impressive, but it also handles the character moments very nicely (Alan Rickman, in particular, does a superb job with Snape's arc).

The epilogue at the end is still in, and depending on how you felt about it in the book (I didn't mind it) then you'll probably feel the same. Mostly, the film is most successful at feeling like a real conclusion to the story, with enough nods to the iconography of the series to make it feel as if all the strands are coming together into a cohesive whole.

A fitting end to the saga.


I see the Harry Potter films as being on a bellcurve of goodness that peaks at Prisoner and winds down again (probably not to the same level). Which is largely due to how much the films feel beholded to the narrative of the books. Prisoner was good because it took liberties with the setting and narrative in order to develop its own feel, and I felt like this final installment had gone back to an attempt to accurately complete the narrative without any serious thought about drama. A battle can afford not to be that dramatic in a book, but in a film it requires some beats in order to tell you whgat is going on. It wa particularly disconcerting the way the children ran up and down the stairs for no discernable reason for the entire fight and the way that the bit with Mrs Weasley and LeStrange seemed misplayed because it was a moment of drama rather than narrative advance.

It just felt like the film's main task was to finish telling you what happened rather than be charming, which is what a film about the battle between good and evil shold be.

I did quite like Dudley though. When he climbed up over the bridge I wanted him to throw a battered fedora up ahead of him.
Llama
QUOTE (empathy-with-beast @ Jul 18 2011, 12:11 PM) *
I did quite like Dudley though. When he climbed up over the bridge I wanted him to throw a battered fedora up ahead of him.

Psst, that's Neville. Dudley's Harry's cousin.
sweetbutinsane
Young Sherlock Holmes

Young Watson had Harry Potter glasses. I found it very distracting. I didn't really like the film all that much (except for the bit with the bird at the beginning - that was hilarious), but the music is stuck in my head now.
Serafina_Pekkala
QUOTE (Llama @ Jul 18 2011, 12:53 PM) *
Psst, that's Neville. Dudley's Harry's cousin.


Yeah - The Gofug girls have been in heaven about how he became more attractive.

The Green Hornet

Fun. Silly. Not as bad as every review said. Seth Rogan was fine although his mouth/teeth still bother me and he does obnoxious and entitled well. Jay Chou on the other hand is teh dreamies. They worked well together. So did Cameron D.
maian
Married to the Mob

Fun, fluffy crime comedy-drama from Jonathan Demme in which Michelle Pfeiffer plays the wife of a Mafia heavy (Alex Baldwin) who is murdered by the psychotic boss (Dean Stockwell) who then starts pursuing her. This causes her to leave for New York, but not before arousing the suspicions of an unhinged FBI agent (Matthew Modine) who goes undercover in order to find out what, if anything, she knows.

It fizzes along nicely, the performances are good - particularly Stockwell, who was Oscar-nominated for his role - and the music by David Byrne is pretty cool. Not a great film, but really fun.
Serafina_Pekkala
QUOTE (maian @ Jul 20 2011, 04:00 PM) *
unhinged FBI agent (Matthew Modine)


he is very sweet in this movie.
maian
QUOTE (Serafina_Pekkala @ Jul 20 2011, 04:11 PM) *
he is very sweet in this movie.


He is quite sweet, but I liked that they made him appeallingly nutty. His pursuit of her through the streets of New York - including climbing out of the sunroof of a bus and the shot of him joining the a capella group to spy on her - is hilarious.
Sostie
QUOTE (maian @ Jul 20 2011, 04:00 PM) *
Married to the Mob


My second favourite Demme film. You saw my favourite last week.
maian
QUOTE (Sostie @ Jul 20 2011, 08:28 PM) *
My second favourite Demme film. You saw my favourite last week.


I really want to watch Something Wild again. I love the change in style and tone halfway through.
Ade
QUOTE (maian @ Jul 20 2011, 08:55 PM) *
I really want to watch Something Wild again. I love the change in style and tone halfway through.

I seem to recall that being darn good entertainyment - wouldn't mind seeing it again myself, actually.
Sostie
VIDEO NASTIES: MORAL PANIC, CENSORSHIP & VIDEOTAPE
Documentary about the "moral panic" surrounding the availability of video nasties during the video boom in the early 80's. It is truly shocking the ease in which the usual suspects such as Mary Whitehouse, the Tories and The Daily Mail managed to get small business men jailed, or pay hefty fines, for stocking horror movies. Even more shocking is that they did it with doctored/non-existent research, without seeing any of the actual films and regarding the "lower classes" as incapable of controlling violent urges after seeing such films.
As well as plenty of clips, there is a host of archive footage and knowledgeable talking heads, from those that tried to ban the films (very smug and still believing what they did was right), lecturers, lawyers, collectors and famous fans, such as Neil Marshall and Andy Nyman.
Along with the documentary "Ban The Sadist Videos", an excellent account of events that shaped censorship and film distribution in this country for years to come. It's also infuriating that such things happened the way they did.
Serafina_Pekkala
Something Wild is fucking funny.

The Bank Job

Silly drama with The Stath about a robbery. But I enjoyed it. Daniel Mays and Poirot dressed as Ronnie Barker - always entertaining. Saffron Burrows is a bit wooden but overall - stupid fun.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.