-
Welcome, guest!
Why not take a moment to register an account?
If you already have an account, remember to Log In!
What movie did you watch last night? (17 Viewers)
- Thread starter nlgbbbblth
- Start date
- Replies 23K
- Views 2M
- Watchers 64
jonah
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2009
- Messages
- 6,650
I'll say it once without elaboration, but I am mortally against Tarantino.
hermie
Well-Known Member
Why's that, is it just style over substance or does his foot fetish creep you out or what?
Last night True Grit for the third time. Also caught Zero Dark Thirty last week. Really enjoyed it I have to say. Of course it's a one-sided story, it was always going to be, but it's a fascinating insight I thought. It's drawn unfavourable comparisons to Homeland which I'd have to completely disagree with. The intrigue is far more believable, not least because most of it actually happened. And the cast, particularly Jessica Chastain pisses all over Claire Cryface et al.
Timecrimes
Remember when Homer tried to fix his toaster ?
This scene ends with Homer bashing dinosaurs with a club until he gets a future he can deal with.
Timecrimes is a Spanish movie, it's the first feature of director Nacho Vigalondo it's about time travel and it has a cast of 4 people. It looks good and has some smashing boobs in it. It's very clever and that's it really.
There's not much I can say about the film without giving away the plot. The time travel aspects are extremely well handled and it builds tension very well. Well it would if you give two fucks about the central character. Personally I didn't because while the logic of the time travel is well thought out, the central character, much like Primer feels more like a vessel to carry the film along than a believable human being. I lost interest about halfway through because I found his reasoning utterly flawed and idiotic. Clever but extremely flawed and once you find your self asking "why?" and actually think about it slightly irritating.
Remember when Homer tried to fix his toaster ?
This scene ends with Homer bashing dinosaurs with a club until he gets a future he can deal with.
Timecrimes is a Spanish movie, it's the first feature of director Nacho Vigalondo it's about time travel and it has a cast of 4 people. It looks good and has some smashing boobs in it. It's very clever and that's it really.
There's not much I can say about the film without giving away the plot. The time travel aspects are extremely well handled and it builds tension very well. Well it would if you give two fucks about the central character. Personally I didn't because while the logic of the time travel is well thought out, the central character, much like Primer feels more like a vessel to carry the film along than a believable human being. I lost interest about halfway through because I found his reasoning utterly flawed and idiotic. Clever but extremely flawed and once you find your self asking "why?" and actually think about it slightly irritating.
jonah
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2009
- Messages
- 6,650
Kind of a combination of things, style over substance being one of the main ones. I think he's made some undeniably good movies - resevoir dogs and jackie brown - but overall his "thing" doesn't work for me. I think very often he nearly gets it right too. Like with Inglorious Basterds, some of the sections were relaly great - Christoph Waltz and Melanie Laurent's section was excellent - but some just don't work, and I really hate when that happens with an otherwise good film. The actual Basterd stuff in that film just bored the hell out of me.
As for the foot fetish, as it happens I have a pretty pressing foot phobia. I once kicked a 3 year old in the face once when he grabbed my foot. Its like a knee jerk reaction, if you touch my foot, I kick you in the face. I've been told that I could get paid a lot of money by fetishists for that very impuse.
hermie
Well-Known Member
I like his tribute/pastiche movies so long as it's pretty clear what he's borrowing from/sending up. When it isn't (e.g Inglorius Basterds/Kill Bill II) the end result is confusing and mostly silly. Of course in the long run these could be his most influential works but I don't enjoy them as much.
Ha, so foot fetishist frequently have a sado-masochistic streak? They're a gas bunch. Did the 3 year old get you in trouble??
Cormcolash
Well-Known Member
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!! SOMEONE ELSE GETS IT!!!!! Will you marry me?
Cormcolash
Well-Known Member
True Grit is pretty great.
I didn't like Zero Dark Thirty. To a certain extent, it was alright, but a lot of the dialogue was just fucking irritating. Hey, I'm gonna call illegal terrorist detainees "Bro" all the time. Bollocks. Hey, I'm a strong woman, so I say "motherfucker" at important meetings. BOLLOCKS.
Hugo
Adult films disguised as kids entertainment have become a common occurance in film making recently. Toy Story 3 and UP prime examples. Films about the fear of death and aging which are told using toys and a flying house. I can't wait until David Cronenburg decides to make a masterpiece about auto erotic asphixiation using nothing but animated furbies, or if thumped bank rolls it - Bratz dolls. The thing about kids films is that like a recent rant i went on about Sci-Fi, a kids film has the rule book thrown away from the get go because its audience isn't (or at least shouldn't be) stricken with the kind of cynicism and melancholia that you get from standing outside the square in Tallaght in the pissing rain for 3 months of your life waiting on a 75 bus which you know isn't fucking coming but you dare not move, christ no that's what they want you to do. Good kids films treat kids as though they are adults. They know that a child is capable of grasping plot and pathos etc because kids are smarter than you think. Great Kids films understand that if you want to deal in higher purposes themes of death for example, then do so as though you are talking to a child with a brain instead of pandering to what you think a child will understand and thusly leave said child looking at you like "what the fuck are you talking about? I know that when you die you go in the fucking ground and there's no fucking coming back, I dug up the cat and he was fucking bones. Do you have any evidence of angels ? No ? then fuck off you twat or I'll scream pedo til someone kicks your arse in". Children are inherantly curious and unlike adults when they watch a film that they don't totally get they usually invest more in it to figure it out instead of getting annoyed by it. Kids unlike adults are fairly used to the fact that they don't know absolutely everything beacuse they are confronted with the fact that they don't know everything on a daily basis. Adults aren't and therefore feel annoyed by the fact that they are occaisionally challenged, which is why your 9 year old can use your iPad and your father can't. Or at least that's been my experience with kids. But they were particularly smart, percosious kids to be fair.
Hugo is a film which on the surface is about a young lad living in a Parisien train station who works on clocks and is faced with a challenge to fix an automaton his father found in a museum. Of course it isn't about this at all it's about the joy of cinema and the importance of archiving our history. Basically it's an exploration of the theory that what is forgotten in the present is lost in the future (I can't remember the exact quote or who said it). Of course this is Martin Scorsese's kids film. Once again proving that he can pretty much direct anything and make it something special, if he made porn or car insurance ads they'd probably be fucking masterpieces. Here Scorsese is seemingly having a blast, the opening shot seems to last about 3 minutes as his camera zips through the train station at a furious pace before ending with an expession on the titular heros face which pretty much gives you the bones of the plot. Like The Departed more has happened before the title appears than happens in most full length films.
Suffice to say I loved Hugo. It's so beautiful to look at makes Harry Potter and the likes look like they were filmed on sandpaper and covered in shit. Although like Harry Potter movies and the likes, which are live action and 3D the only gripe I have with the film is that because it was intended to be viewed in 3D and I watched it here in regular flat 2D there are moments when the visuals look a little too false. A problem which I'm sure will be ironed out just in time for affordable 3D TVs appear and no one cares anymore except those who bang on about not liking 3D because the "glasses make it too dark" which to be fair is still an issue but does seem to be improving. Inspite of this very minor gripe even if it does look a little odd it is still a feast for the eyes. It moves along at a good pace the performances are uniformly excellent. It's central characters, Hugo an energetic and quite quiet and philosophical young lad and and Isabelle a bookish bright up start are likable which is half the battle when it comes to kids in films. Thankfully no one wants to go pod racing or whines. What makes Hugo special is that Scorsese knows he's making a film about the magic of cinema and in doing so is doing his level best to make us or remind us of the feeling of that magic. Wether it works or not is up to your own stoney heart but for me it did. To this end Marty gets the films tone just right. Most of the films that work on an adult and child level are quite dark, especially recently. Films like Nightmare Before Christmas or Coraline are visually dark and brooding even the final Toy Story film veered towards a darker harder edge in it's finale. Hugo avoids this, there are of course heavier moments in the plot, homelessness, fear of orphanages, WWI and several deaths but the film never feels anything like anything except a joyous adventure. There is of course a villain but even he is human, an obstacle in the way of Hugo rather than an ominous presence driving the film along. Without a horrible villain or a dark undercurrent the film holds attention by having a cheerful sense of mystery, which is no mean feat as dark is actually quite easy to do but joyous without tipping over into saccharine is not. A film about bright kids for bright kids, in short Hugo is great. See it on a rainy saturday when you're feeling pleased with life and then go out for a few pints.
Adult films disguised as kids entertainment have become a common occurance in film making recently. Toy Story 3 and UP prime examples. Films about the fear of death and aging which are told using toys and a flying house. I can't wait until David Cronenburg decides to make a masterpiece about auto erotic asphixiation using nothing but animated furbies, or if thumped bank rolls it - Bratz dolls. The thing about kids films is that like a recent rant i went on about Sci-Fi, a kids film has the rule book thrown away from the get go because its audience isn't (or at least shouldn't be) stricken with the kind of cynicism and melancholia that you get from standing outside the square in Tallaght in the pissing rain for 3 months of your life waiting on a 75 bus which you know isn't fucking coming but you dare not move, christ no that's what they want you to do. Good kids films treat kids as though they are adults. They know that a child is capable of grasping plot and pathos etc because kids are smarter than you think. Great Kids films understand that if you want to deal in higher purposes themes of death for example, then do so as though you are talking to a child with a brain instead of pandering to what you think a child will understand and thusly leave said child looking at you like "what the fuck are you talking about? I know that when you die you go in the fucking ground and there's no fucking coming back, I dug up the cat and he was fucking bones. Do you have any evidence of angels ? No ? then fuck off you twat or I'll scream pedo til someone kicks your arse in". Children are inherantly curious and unlike adults when they watch a film that they don't totally get they usually invest more in it to figure it out instead of getting annoyed by it. Kids unlike adults are fairly used to the fact that they don't know absolutely everything beacuse they are confronted with the fact that they don't know everything on a daily basis. Adults aren't and therefore feel annoyed by the fact that they are occaisionally challenged, which is why your 9 year old can use your iPad and your father can't. Or at least that's been my experience with kids. But they were particularly smart, percosious kids to be fair.
Hugo is a film which on the surface is about a young lad living in a Parisien train station who works on clocks and is faced with a challenge to fix an automaton his father found in a museum. Of course it isn't about this at all it's about the joy of cinema and the importance of archiving our history. Basically it's an exploration of the theory that what is forgotten in the present is lost in the future (I can't remember the exact quote or who said it). Of course this is Martin Scorsese's kids film. Once again proving that he can pretty much direct anything and make it something special, if he made porn or car insurance ads they'd probably be fucking masterpieces. Here Scorsese is seemingly having a blast, the opening shot seems to last about 3 minutes as his camera zips through the train station at a furious pace before ending with an expession on the titular heros face which pretty much gives you the bones of the plot. Like The Departed more has happened before the title appears than happens in most full length films.
Suffice to say I loved Hugo. It's so beautiful to look at makes Harry Potter and the likes look like they were filmed on sandpaper and covered in shit. Although like Harry Potter movies and the likes, which are live action and 3D the only gripe I have with the film is that because it was intended to be viewed in 3D and I watched it here in regular flat 2D there are moments when the visuals look a little too false. A problem which I'm sure will be ironed out just in time for affordable 3D TVs appear and no one cares anymore except those who bang on about not liking 3D because the "glasses make it too dark" which to be fair is still an issue but does seem to be improving. Inspite of this very minor gripe even if it does look a little odd it is still a feast for the eyes. It moves along at a good pace the performances are uniformly excellent. It's central characters, Hugo an energetic and quite quiet and philosophical young lad and and Isabelle a bookish bright up start are likable which is half the battle when it comes to kids in films. Thankfully no one wants to go pod racing or whines. What makes Hugo special is that Scorsese knows he's making a film about the magic of cinema and in doing so is doing his level best to make us or remind us of the feeling of that magic. Wether it works or not is up to your own stoney heart but for me it did. To this end Marty gets the films tone just right. Most of the films that work on an adult and child level are quite dark, especially recently. Films like Nightmare Before Christmas or Coraline are visually dark and brooding even the final Toy Story film veered towards a darker harder edge in it's finale. Hugo avoids this, there are of course heavier moments in the plot, homelessness, fear of orphanages, WWI and several deaths but the film never feels anything like anything except a joyous adventure. There is of course a villain but even he is human, an obstacle in the way of Hugo rather than an ominous presence driving the film along. Without a horrible villain or a dark undercurrent the film holds attention by having a cheerful sense of mystery, which is no mean feat as dark is actually quite easy to do but joyous without tipping over into saccharine is not. A film about bright kids for bright kids, in short Hugo is great. See it on a rainy saturday when you're feeling pleased with life and then go out for a few pints.
hermie
Well-Known Member
Oddly I quite liked that. It was realistic I thought that the dialogue wasn't all Aaron Sorkin. These guys aren't slick talking spin doctors, they're goofy, patriotic detectives essentially. Broface's carry on made sense to me. He was sort of good cop and bad cop all at once. He felt empathy with them even while utterly believing that torture was necessary. And likewise in the motherfucker scene. Her intended killer line is meant to be painfully embarrassing but she's operating in a man's world and it has the desired effect. I bought everything that happened on screen and this is one thing that the silver screen still has over television in terms of serious entertainment; it doesn't have to come up with a new plot twist, ever-more more trying to our suspension of disbelief, every week to keep folk tuning in - like for example Homeland.
And if you don't believe me check this out (some spoilers):
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...n_who_are_the_real_life_inspirations_for.html
The only thing that wasn't completely believable was how good looking everybody in the movie is. But hey, it's Hollywood and I wasn't complaining about that aspect.
hermie
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #13,012
nlgbbbblth
Well-Known Member
Gimme Shelter again.
"No toilets, no parking, no doctors".
"No toilets, no parking, no doctors".
- Thread starter
- #13,013
nlgbbbblth
Well-Known Member
More Maysles - Salesman.
hermie
Well-Known Member
Gremlins 2, Phoebe Cates where are you now?
Flight. Was very good.
David Kronenbourg
Well-Known Member
She retired from acting to raise her kids in the 90s.
Her son was the younger kid in The Squid & The Whale, no?
Silver Linings Playbook
A slightly above Rom-Com tarted up with a handful of Oscar bait tricks like shitloads of close ups and not a huge amount of music.
Ultimately it's still a story about a pretty couple thrown together to prepare for a dance contest
The fact that it's Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence and not Matthew McConnaghey and Kate Hudson, mean that it's watchable, even good.
It's not One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest though, so I wish people would calm down.
A slightly above Rom-Com tarted up with a handful of Oscar bait tricks like shitloads of close ups and not a huge amount of music.
Ultimately it's still a story about a pretty couple thrown together to prepare for a dance contest
The fact that it's Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence and not Matthew McConnaghey and Kate Hudson, mean that it's watchable, even good.
It's not One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest though, so I wish people would calm down.
shower another shower
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2003
- Messages
- 5,740
All 3 Zeitgeist films. 3 thumbs up.
Users who are viewing this thread
Activity
So far there's no one here
21 Day Calendar
Similar threads
Support thumped.com
Support thumped.com and upgrade your account
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade now
