love

Author Topic: Top 100 Club: smirnoff  (Read 19296 times)

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 35728
  • Marathon Man
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #50 on: October 01, 2019, 03:19:11 PM »
I'm old enough that when I read Hero I initially wonder if you're talking about this...



...which makes the review funnier.

colonel_mexico

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1416
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #51 on: October 01, 2019, 09:52:44 PM »
I'm old enough that when I read Hero I initially wonder if you're talking about this...



...which makes the review funnier.

LOL, that's a classic! John Bubber lolol
"What do you want me to do draw you a picture?! Spell it out?! Don't ever ask me, as long as you live don't ever ask me more!"

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26153
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #52 on: October 04, 2019, 01:18:53 AM »
Perfect Sense (David Mackenzie 2011)

What a cool idea for a film. Senses are the way we interact with the world, with eeach other, and taking them away is an excellent way of attempting to reveal things about humanity, and even reflecting on our very nature (it's essentially what Descartes does in Discourse on the Method after all). It's also quite the filmmaking challenge. As a medium, cinema relies entirely on two senses and can only do its best to evoke the other three, but some do manage it,- at least in the case of touch and smell - I don't think I've ever watched a film that conveyed a sense of taste. Made me hungry, sure, but taste seems like the toughest one to me.

Unfortunately, I feel that Mackenzie completely fails to live up to his premise. He is commited, to a certain extent, and there is an ambition here that I can respect... though I question the choice to leave out touch entirely. One could argue that the film sees touch as the "perfect sense", because it is the one that most intimately connects with this idea of, well, connecting people, and this is a love story after all. Fine, but I was kinda looking forward to what would happen when people lost touch: it would essentially have been the cinematic recreation of Avicenna's "flying man" experiment, and that would be a fascinating thing for a filmmaker to explore. But now that's just me trying to make the film into something that it isn't, which is probably unfair.

The reason I do want it to be something else, however, is because what it is just doesn't work for me at all. As a commentary on modern society, on alienation, it feels trite, the cinematic equivalent of a fortune cookie. As for the romance... I think Eva Green is simply not very good here ? I'm not sure if it's here or the writing : the "sailor" bit does strikes me as something that may work on paper but not on screen, for example. I think she has some chemistry with McGregor, but this film wants more than that from them: from the direction to the overbearing score, it all screams that this is a transcendental love story that's not about these two characters but about the whole concept of love and connection between humans... and that's a tough bar to clear. I think it has the issue of overtly trying to be universal, but the universal is best achieved through specificity, and what attempts there are at that here are too obviously tied in to the main plot (both having jobs that are very strongly connected to the virus) to ever feel real.

Points for ambition, but none for execution, for me anyway. I can certainly see how this would be a favorite though, it's a big swing and when those hit, they hit hard.

This sounds like an all around frustrating experience. It always is when the story doesn't rise to the level of the premise. Alas, it seems like a classic case of film and viewer being on different wavelengths. But thanks for giving it a try! :)

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26153
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #53 on: October 04, 2019, 01:53:43 AM »
I watched this a few weeks ago, but forgot to post my thoughts here.

Hero
I almost certainly did this movie a disservice by watching it streaming on Hulu. This is a movie which leans hard into its aesthetic and I think the quality of my stream did this movie no favors.

That said, I think even with a beautiful and crisp print I'd have issues. There are moments of absolute cinematic ecstasy. And there are moments where the movie feels so hard to push the stylistic bar that it falters and reveals a shallow core. With the type of intense style and extreme wire-work action there is a fine line between cool and comical. I think this movie dips into the latter quite a bit.

The mesmerizing colors and the at times unbelievable action outstrips the negative, but at the same time those cracks in the stylistic mystique cheapens the experience and makes me question the movie as a whole.
7/10

The next time I revisit this film I worry I will have the same reaction. I've seen it a couple times, but it's been several years since last viewing. A recent rewatch of Crouching Tiger saw the film rise even higher than its already high position in my top 100.... on the other hand, when I rewatched House of Flying Daggers, from the same director as Hero, I was surprised I had ever enjoyed it, let alone included it in a top 100.

I listen to the score now and then and picture the film in my mind and think how amazing it was, but will reality match my memory?

I am so glad that your experience included moments of "cinematic ecstasy" though. :)

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 35728
  • Marathon Man
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #54 on: October 04, 2019, 01:57:34 PM »
I learned today that Alone in the Wilderness is just the first of a series of equally acclaimed films. smirnoff, did you know? have you seen? Are you interested?

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26153
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #55 on: October 04, 2019, 11:40:06 PM »
I've never looked too much into it. I knew there was additional content, but didn't really know how much or how little, and whether it was more of the same (which would be great) or something else entirely. The dvds seemed kind of expensive for the gamble. Some streaming place should snap up the rights.

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11976
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #56 on: October 05, 2019, 12:42:53 AM »
Allow me to formally convey my presence.

Mellow greetings, sir. :)

Quote
This is one of the last holdouts of 90's era Bullock films for me

"Send a maniac to catch a maniac." Or in this case, send a Sandy to catch a Sandy. :)



:D

Those sunglasses are way cool.

Quote
So among the 90's Bullock movies, where does this one place in terms of love scenes?



I wish we got to see more people's living rooms in this film to see if they all have sunken sex arenas in the middle of them. I mean... she's got couches. So what else is this little arena used for? If true, it's still less weird than the Taco Bell thing.

It also doesn't look all that comfortable.

I choose this one.



As near as I can figure, sex takes less than a minute in the future, so I want the space to have other uses. :)

Quote
Also, any three seashells theories?

I heard Marco Brambilla was looking for inspiration and happened to be in someone else's bathroom and saw some sea shells, and the rest is history!
(He said something about two shells for extraction. :o)



To answer your love scene questions. This sunken living room scene is overt, yet sterile. The Sandra Bullock love scenes I enjoy are all touchy (dancing, slipping, leaning, escaping...), yet very chaste - a bit like regency porn, where a touch of a hand, or glimpse of an ankle provides ample sexual tension.

Here are some favorites.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Dm5PR679o


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SEWam-uEoU


Does this count? It's pretty intimate. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3m-Ht3_tFc

Dave the Necrobumper

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12473
  • If I keep digging maybe I will get out of this hol
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #57 on: October 05, 2019, 01:37:22 AM »
As near as I can figure, sex takes less than a minute in the future, so I want the space to have other uses. :)

They clearly have more time in the future for sex

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11976
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #58 on: October 24, 2019, 10:42:07 PM »
Passengers



"There she lay, so beautiful that he could not turn his eyes away." - Sleeping Beauty (The Brothers Grimm)

The ultimate betrayal for the most understandable reasons. What a character study and how uncomfortable watching said character study. For all the space peril, nothing is as agonizing as watching Jim's protracted conundrum. "Don't do it, man." "Okay, now you've done it." That's me commiserating under my breath with Jim as he does the dastardly deed. And then all we can do is watch it come to it's inevitable conclusion. Stressful! The only peaceful interlude is watching Kat, I mean, Aurora swim, but then that gets stressful too! Very cool scene btw and that pool is the coolest as well. Hmm, this is stream of consciousness, but I'm too confounded by the ideas I've been confronted with and am now wondering how much I could enjoy myself for 80 years in a spaceship full of unlimited movies, cuisine, books, swimming and Chris Pratt. ;)


smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26153
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #59 on: October 25, 2019, 11:33:49 PM »
Passenger spoilers

You've given me a thought.

5,058 people on board, 120 year journey, and they're supposed to wake with 2 months left.

Instead 2 people are woken up with 90 years still to go.

Lets assume they live another 80 years thanks to the auto-doc.

Thinking about food/water supply. Under normal circumstances the ship was to feed 5058 people for 2 months. Lets say (2000 calories a day) x (60 Days) x (5058 people) + 2% as a margin of safety = 619,099,200 calories

However (2 people) x (80 years) x (2000 cals a day) = 116,800,000 calories

This leaves 452,299,200 calories for 5056 people for 60 days, which is 1490 calories a day. Not fatal, but people will certainly slim down. All this depends on them recognizing the shortfall immediately and rationing the food they have left to make it to Homestead II. It also depends on Jim and Aurora not over-indulging (which is unlikely), and the company having a 2% safety buffer (which is really really large on such a long journey, and super costly given the fact it's space travel).

I wonder if this is part of the reason Jim and Aurora have plants growing all over the place by the end.... they recognize that they're jeopardizing everybody else by simply being awake and they are trying to be more self-sustainable regarding not only food, but also oxygen.



Passengers



"There she lay, so beautiful that he could not turn his eyes away." - Sleeping Beauty (The Brothers Grimm)

The ultimate betrayal for the most understandable reasons. What a character study and how uncomfortable watching said character study. For all the space peril, nothing is as agonizing as watching Jim's protracted conundrum. "Don't do it, man." "Okay, now you've done it." That's me commiserating under my breath with Jim as he does the dastardly deed. And then all we can do is watch it come to it's inevitable conclusion. Stressful! The only peaceful interlude is watching Kat, I mean, Aurora swim, but then that gets stressful too! Very cool scene btw and that pool is the coolest as well. Hmm, this is stream of consciousness, but I'm too confounded by the ideas I've been confronted with and am now wondering how much I could enjoy myself for 80 years in a spaceship full of unlimited movies, cuisine, books, swimming and Chris Pratt. ;)

It seems like it would be difficult to find purpose in such a situation. Aurora writes... perhaps that enough. They can make each other happy, maybe that's enough. But what if it isn't...

Are there enough distractions available for 80 years of inevitability? Being alone would be desperately lonely, that I can get. Even with a partner it could feel that way after a while I imagine. But what awaited them on Homestead II? Complete financial freedom? No. Happy relationships? Not necessarily. More possibilities? Yes. Is that enough to make it preferable? It would be a strange choice to be faced with, and difficult to measure. :-\

I'm glad you watched this! Everybody should see it and throw in their 2 cents. :)
« Last Edit: October 25, 2019, 11:36:03 PM by smirnoff »

 

love