love

Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched (Jan 2011 - Nov 2013)  (Read 1403589 times)

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 25572
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #14070 on: July 09, 2012, 08:16:53 PM »
Savages (2012)

Stone however undercuts what he has with way too many indulgent flourishes including cuts to B&W or various color filters for no clear purpose.

Precisely this.

I consider it a bad sign when I "see the strings" on the very first viewing. That's the time when absorption in into the film is most likely! Too many off notes here though... good elements but not working in concert with one another.


sdedalus

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 16586
  • I have a prestigious blog, sir!
    • The End of Cinema
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #14071 on: July 09, 2012, 08:27:42 PM »
Hasn't he done that in every film he's made since Platoon 25 years ago?
The End of Cinema

Seattle Screen Scene

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

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 25572
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #14072 on: July 09, 2012, 09:17:43 PM »
Depends who you ask. For me Wall Street, Talk Radio, JFK and Any Given Sunday hit all the right notes, and hit them at the same time.

sdedalus

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 16586
  • I have a prestigious blog, sir!
    • The End of Cinema
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #14073 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 #14074 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: 11607
  • If I keep digging maybe I will get out of this hol
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #14075 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 #14076 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 #14077 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: 16832
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #14078 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: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #14079 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.