Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched (Jan 2011 - Nov 2013)  (Read 1354045 times)

sdedalus

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 16589
  • I have a prestigious blog, sir!
    • The End of Cinema
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #13950 on: July 09, 2012, 09:25:02 PM »
I mean the B&W/color thing.
The End of Cinema

Seattle Screen Scene

"He was some kind of a man. What does it matter what you say about people?"

Osprey

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #13951 on: July 09, 2012, 09:42:15 PM »
Get Carter 1971


Hard film.  Wonderful 1960s-70s style amid the brutalistic architecture coupled with the 19th century slums of Newcastle with Caine in his just so trench and tie.  Carter's a real anti-hero, a real SOB who you somehow identify with, but no heart of gold anywhere near him.

Dave the Necrobumper

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11098
  • My tinypic changed so no avatar for a little while
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #13952 on: July 10, 2012, 12:21:30 AM »
The Amazing Spider-Man (Marc Webb, US, 2012)

Reasons for my approval


We agreed that the movie had found the sweet balance between action, humor and psychological drama - a tasty blend of salt, sweet and bitter. Andrew Garfield is the most adorable teenager you ever saw and it's impossible to believe that the guy is turning 29 in a month. The effects are at the level you expect nowadays and I thoroughly enjoyed the swinging between the skyscrapers as I always do, either its Maguire or Garfield who is hanging in the lines.

I do not agree. Garfield only appeared to be a teenager because we have been trained for years with 20 something "teenagers". He was a good spiderman, but a beleivable teenager he was not.

 
Being There (1979)
The performance here from Sellers is an interesting, highly mannered one. Yet that manner is so dry that it makes the film a bit aching at times. The film feels hours long under the weight of its overly formal nature. It's an interesting idea that just doesn't pan out.

2/5

Now watch a better version of a similar story line: Bad Boy Bubby

Yes people should watch Bad Boy Bubby. Just barracking for one of my favourite films.

Totoro

  • Guest
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #13953 on: July 10, 2012, 12:23:05 AM »
I remember hoping that they should cast someone still in their early 20s/late teens as Spiderman. But no. In fact, Andrew Garfield is the exact same age as Tobey Maguire when he played Spiderman.

Lobby

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2762
    • The Velvet Café
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #13954 on: July 10, 2012, 12:38:09 AM »
I actually thought he worked well. There was something in the way that he held his body that was very teen-age-like to me. Casual, with still newly grown body-parts, a bit Bambi like that convinced me.
http://thevelvetcafe.wordpress.com/  - where I think aloud about movies

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 16278
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #13955 on: July 10, 2012, 11:56:51 AM »

The Tree of Life (rewatch) - Cynicism and optimism… always you wrestle inside me.  While revisiting this film, I questioned my admiration for it, hearing the voices of the critics in my ear.  “Isn’t all this whispering kinda silly?”  Yes, yes it is.  It’s the one thing I would unhesitatingly change about the film.  It doesn’t make anything sound more heartfelt or profound, it just makes it difficult to hear.

“Isn’t this all rather self-important?”  Maybe.  But I don’t buy it.  I think that’s a knee-jerk reaction to films that are light on “plot”, as if every movie only needs to convey some series of events.  This happened, then that happened, then this guy did a thing.  No, I don’t buy it.  I don’t buy that movies should be one thing and one thing only.  I love stories, too.  Most of my favorite films tell a story.  You know what?  So does The Tree of Life.  It just happens to also take some detours along the way to ask questions, to ponder things.  Maybe these things are important, and maybe we don’t have to be cynical bastards who mock everything that seems “self-important”.

“It’s style over substance!”  Could be.  I haven’t done the math.  What is it, 60% style and 40% substance?  55/45?  90/10?  Does it matter if you really really love the style?  I could say “I love this film because it’s beautiful images of beautiful people doing beautiful things in beautiful places.” and I’d be happy with that review.  There’s nothing wrong or shameful about letting the aesthetic qualities of a work of art sweep you off your feet.  Is there any “substance” to the lengthy creation scene?  I honestly don’t know.  I’ve read some defenses of it, some of them make sense to me, some of them don’t.  I see it as part of the whole, as the entire history of the universe feeding into and building up the lives of these characters and everyone else.  But mostly I just enjoy being intoxicated by the glory of it.  I take pleasure in that.  I felt sad for a dinosaur.  I take pleasure in that emotion too.  When style is so rapturous, let it be style over substance (though I do not deny the substance).

“Malick didn’t even know what he was doing!  He figured it all out in the editing room!”  Oh, buzz off.  That’s not a valid complaint.  If you think there’s only one “right” way to make a film, you’re only cheating yourself.  Hitchcock edited entire films in his head before shooting.  Good for him, that worked out beautifully.  This worked out beautifully too.  Wonderful songs arise out of jam sessions.  Wonderful paintings are begun with random brush strokes.  Wonderful comedy is improvised out of a barebones idea.  Let Malick have his cinematic jam sessions if this is to be the result.  Rating: Masterpiece (96)
« Last Edit: July 10, 2012, 12:15:20 PM by MartinTeller »
Switchboard
Watched 2020

Top 250  |  Great  |  Good  |  Fair  |  PoorCrap

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 13744
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #13956 on: July 10, 2012, 12:11:31 PM »
The Tree of Life (rewatch) - Cynicism and optimism… always you wrestle inside me.  While revisiting this film, I questioned my admiration for it, hearing the voices in my critics in my ear.  “Isn’t all this whispering kinda silly?”  Yes, yes it is.  It’s the one thing I would unhesitatingly change about the film.  It doesn’t make anything sound more heartfelt or profound, it just makes it difficult to hear.

“Isn’t this all rather self-important?”  Maybe.  But I don’t buy it.  I think that’s a knee-jerk reaction to films that are light on “plot”, as if every movie only needs to convey some series of events.  This happened, then that happened, then this guy did a thing.  No, I don’t buy it.  I don’t buy that movies should be one thing and one thing only.  I love stories, too.  Most of my favorite films tell a story.  You know what?  So does The Tree of Life.  It just happens to also take some detours along the way to ask questions, to ponder things.  Maybe these things are important, and maybe we don’t have to be cynical bastards who mock everything that seems “self-important”.

“It’s style over substance!”  Could be.  I haven’t done the math.  What is it, 60% style and 40% substance?  55/45?  90/10?  Does it matter if you really really love the style?  I could say “I love this film because it’s beautiful images of beautiful people doing beautiful things in beautiful places.” and I’d be happy with that review.  There’s nothing wrong or shameful about letting the aesthetic qualities of a work of art sweep you off your feet.  Is there any “substance” to the lengthy creation scene?  I honestly don’t know.  I’ve read some defenses of it, some of them make sense to me, some of them don’t.  I see it as part of the whole, as the entire history of the universe feeding into and building up the lives of these characters and everyone else.  But mostly I just enjoy being intoxicated by the glory of it.  I take pleasure in that.  I felt sad for a dinosaur.  I take pleasure in that emotion too.  When style is so rapturous, let it be style over substance (though I do not deny the substance).

“Malick didn’t even know what he was doing!  He figured it all out in the editing room!”  Oh, buzz off.  That’s not a valid complaint.  If you think there’s only one “right” way to make a film, you’re only cheating yourself.  Hitchcock edited entire films in his head before shooting.  Good for him, that worked out beautifully.  This worked out beautifully too.  Wonderful songs arise out of jam sessions.  Wonderful paintings are begun with random brush strokes.  Wonderful comedy is improvised out of a barebones idea.  Let Malick have his cinematic jam sessions if this is to be the result.  Rating: Masterpiece (96)
I was going to respond to this by picking out my favorite sentences from your thoughts here and quoting them, but then I realized I just be quoting almost the entire thing.  :)  Really great stuff.  Thank-you.

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 16278
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #13957 on: July 10, 2012, 12:20:36 PM »
Thank you, Melissa!  I really struggled to say what I wanted to say... I had to sleep on it, which I almost never do.  And I'm afraid it still came out as fawning nonsense.  But I hope I captured the spirit of my feelings.
Switchboard
Watched 2020

Top 250  |  Great  |  Good  |  Fair  |  PoorCrap

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 31637
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #13958 on: July 10, 2012, 12:34:31 PM »
I'm a bit surprised to see such a defensive review. Reads like rather than being swept away in the experience you were finding rebuttal for attacks leveled against the film. Your self-importance section was most interesting and would've been happy to hear more specific examples of places where the detours led to a more interesting exploration of Malick's questions.

When you get to style/substance your retort takes on an equally "knee-jerk" quality. What did you find to be Malick's style and why do you think that style fit the substance so well? What about a mention of just how much substance there is? My favorite surprise was in the layers Malick gave to Pitt's character. He wasn't a stock tough father. That goes completely out the window during the sequence where he's playing piano. And he doesn't just play, but that piano becomes the main thread weaving through that section. My feelings on the father were smashed and rebuilt in that section.

Do you have any theories on why Malick's way of finding the story in the editing room is so effective? Maybe some moments where random imagery came together in a way where pre-conception couldn't have done the same so wonderfully? (I would cite the birth of Jack.)

Now, are you willing to accept the counterpoint that there are times when Malick's jam session approach doesn't work? It makes it difficult for the viewer to get their bearings in the opening. (I think we're starting with 2 deaths, but I've only seen the film once.) I'm talking about before the creation sequence. Most of Sean Penn's scenes didn't click with me. I have nothing against Malick being self-important, stylish and figuring it out in the editing room. I still find the result to be flawed but Malick's most interesting work simply because his technique doesn't work with the material 100% of the time, or even 90%. It's not going to. It's not meant to. What matters is when it all does connect (as it did now and again with me) it's like nothing we've ever seen.
Must See  |  Should See  |  Good  |  Mixed  |  Bad

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 16278
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #13959 on: July 10, 2012, 12:55:53 PM »
I'm a bit surprised to see such a defensive review. Reads like rather than being swept away in the experience you were finding rebuttal for attacks leveled against the film.

It was a back-and-forth process.  There were times when I tried to put myself in the mind of the skeptic, the cynic, the critic.  It's easy to do, really.  You can do it with any movie.  Makes me wonder how many of my own criticisms against other films come from a place of cynicism, of just not wanting to like something.  But then why do we want to like some things and not like others?  Why do some win us over despite not wanting to like it, or vice versa?  And that was the key to my final evaluation.  I was really trying to not like it.  I could even agree with those critical voices.  But I was still swept away.  In the end I wanted to watch the whole thing over again.

Your self-importance section was most interesting and would've been happy to hear more specific examples of places where the detours led to a more interesting exploration of Malick's questions.

I don't really have an answer to that right now.  I kind of latched on this idea of allowing myself to concentrate on the "style over substance" thing and didn't concern myself with the thematic content.

When you get to style/substance your retort takes on an equally "knee-jerk" quality. What did you find to be Malick's style and why do you think that style fit the substance so well? What about a mention of just how much substance there is? ... Do you have any theories on why Malick's way of finding the story in the editing room is so effective? Maybe some moments where random imagery came together in a way where pre-conception couldn't have done the same so wonderfully? (I would cite the birth of Jack.)

I think the style is finding the moments that have some sort of poetry and/or resonance to them.  Finding the story in the editing room... isn't this what we do with our lives?  We may make plans but when we think over our lives, we latch onto particular moments that stay with us, planned or not.  We remember things in flashes, out of sequence, repeated, abstract.  A thing that isn't important in terms of how you got to where you are now can still feel important in terms of who you are, what you feel.

It occurred to me, though I forgot to mention it in my review, how much this film feels like The Long Day Closes, though more fragmented.

My favorite surprise was in the layers Malick gave to Pitt's character. He wasn't a stock tough father. That goes completely out the window during the sequence where he's playing piano. And he doesn't just play, but that piano becomes the main thread weaving through that section. My feelings on the father were smashed and rebuilt in that section.

I love that too, I mentioned it briefly in my first review.  He's not a heartless brute.

Now, are you willing to accept the counterpoint that there are times when Malick's jam session approach doesn't work? It makes it difficult for the viewer to get their bearings in the opening. (I think we're starting with 2 deaths, but I've only seen the film once.) I'm talking about before the creation sequence. Most of Sean Penn's scenes didn't click with me. I have nothing against Malick being self-important, stylish and figuring it out in the editing room. I still find the result to be flawed but Malick's most interesting work simply because his technique doesn't work with the material 100% of the time, or even 90%. It's not going to. It's not meant to. What matters is when it all does connect (as it did now and again with me) it's like nothing we've ever seen.

You'd have to define "doesn't work". 
Switchboard
Watched 2020

Top 250  |  Great  |  Good  |  Fair  |  PoorCrap