Movies you've seen recently

[Luj1]

You cant make judgement based on technological advance e.g. Skyrim is better for Morrowind because the graphics and coding are better.

 

 

 

Only thing you can judge are base qualities of a movie. Things that are independent of technology like substance, narrative etc.

 

 

also I prefer Rashomon

Edited May 8, 2015 by Luj1

[Bartimaeus]

So I guess the crowd here regards Marvel movies very highly.... that's too bad, I wanted to talk about Tarkovsky, Bunuel, Bergman, Kurosawa, Herzog, Bresson

 

I'd love for the topic to get off of these silly Marvel and DC movies/comics that I, too, personally do not care much for...

 

Sadly the marvel movies are utter shiet for fat American kids. Nearly value-less

 

...but now that I think about it, I think perhaps I'd rather let everyone else continue to amiably and enjoyably discuss the movies they want to discuss. Ah, it's so easy to comment when there are things being discussed that you would also like to discuss...and equally so easy not to comment when there isn't, isn't it?

[Oerwinde]

I enjoy movies that entertain me, because I don't have time to analyze them. I did when I was younger and enjoyed a wider variety of movies. Now I want fun movies that let me escape the drudgery of everyday life for 2 hours. I also tend to have to watch movies with my kids, the marvel movies are generally ok for them to watch, and I'm a fan of superheroes, so win/win.

 

The millions of dollars that these movies make vs the pittance that art films tend to make would be a pretty strong argument against them being valueless. That said, I'm not saying that they are any sort of masterpieces that will be studied in film schools in years to come, but to dismiss them as valueless when they are sure as hell enjoyed and appreciated by millions of people across the world is an elitest and frankly unwelcome attitude.

 

[Blarghagh]

Sadly the marvel movies are utter shiet for fat American kids. Nearly value-less

 

So liking popcorn entertainment and more highbrow fare is mutually exclusive now? That sounds utterly pretentious. People like different things for different reasons and being judgy about it is just revealing how insecure you really are about how nobody else seems to like what you like.

[Meshugger]

All those directors pretty much worked outside of Hollywood. Heck, even Kubrick emigrated to England in order to have complete control over his projects.

 

The only "artisté"-director left in Hollywood is Terence Mallick, who is as pretentious and airheaded as you can get. So i do not blame Hollywood for not producing movies outside of the established formula. They just need to be reminded of the existence of Tree of Life to be scared of for another year or two.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Meshugger

[Blarghagh]

There's very little point to discussing such films if it's not for professional reasons anyway. Everything that has to be said about them has been said. It's an empty excercise. There's no fun or thrill in theorizing to find out where they're going to go next. But essentially saying "I love an intellectual novel but I can't go on a rollercoaster and enjoy it" doesn't make you superior, it makes you very clearly inferior. Hell, I'll one-up it - psh, why talk about hacks like Kurosawa? You can't tell a story in a 2 hours movie! Read a book, movies are for people without intellectual understanding! Read something by Danielewski instead otherwise you're dumb!

 

Pretentious nonsense.

[Meshugger]

Oh, prentiousness is ugly without a doubt. But at the same time, if there is no objective reasoning on why Mall Cop 2 is worse than s.t.a.l.k.e.r. then there's really no value to what constitutes as good movie to begin with.

[Luj1]

"I love an intellectual novel but I can't go on a rollercoaster and enjoy it"

 

 

 

Except that rollercoaster isn't a novel. bad analogy is bad

 

Likewise these marvel movies are trash devoid of real substance, its only eye candy for the obese masses

 

/thread

[Hurlshort]

Oh, prentiousness is ugly without a doubt. But at the same time, if there is no objective reasoning on why Mall Cop 2 is worse than s.t.a.l.k.e.r. then there's really no value to what constitutes as good movie to begin with.

 

As someone who worked a brief stint as a security guard while in college, I can tell you that Paul Blart is a brilliant character study of the private security archetype.  

[Meshugger]

 

Oh, prentiousness is ugly without a doubt. But at the same time, if there is no objective reasoning on why Mall Cop 2 is worse than s.t.a.l.k.e.r. then there's really no value to what constitutes as good movie to begin with.

 

As someone who worked a brief stint as a security guard while in college, I can tell you that Paul Blart is a brilliant character study of the private security archetype.  

 

 

Well that changes everything

Edited May 8, 2015 by Meshugger

[Blarghagh]

So pretty much the entire canon is going to be in Civil War except for Hulk and Thor.

[Oerwinde]

That parallels the comics. During Civil War, Thor was attempting to break the cycle of Ragnarok and Hulk was on Sakarr being a gladiator messiah/destroyer.

 

The one thing I think has been a mistake with Thor is not introducing Baldur. In Comics and Animation he's established as part of Thor's inner circle and Thor's brother, and as the next Thor flick is Ragnarok, and Baldur's death signals the beginning of Ragnarok, not establishing the character earlier will weaken the movie.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Oerwinde

[Amentep]

 

 

Do you want to know whats wrong with it from the story/mythology stand point, or do you want me to tell you how pathetic it is that they can't push out an original female character that anyone would pay attention to? I mean even now they need the original Thor to appear in every issue to move the story. But hey they put out a safety net, that confirms that Thor will get his powers back eventually.

 

From a story and Marvel myth persepctive, the hammer says "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor", which in practice has granted the power of Thor to whoever holds it (Beta Ray Bill, Natasha Romonov, etc). Its perfectly in keeping with the title to make a changeover.  Heck they did it for several years with Thunderstrike.

 

Thunderstrike was different. He originally took the name Thor because Thor was inhabiting his body. When Thor was expelled no one knew otherwise so he continued using the name, but he kept it secret that he wasn't really Thor. When it was revealed he wasn't Thor, he started going by Thunderstrike. Lady Thor is obviously not Thor Odinson, and the idea that Nick Fury can whisper something in his ear that makes him not only unworthy of Mjolnir, but also of his birth name is ridiculous. He's been named Thor for well over 1000 years in-universe. Last time I remember him being unworthy of Mjolnir he murdered an innocent and became the tyrant king of Earth, and was still worthy of his own damned birth name.

 

 

He still uses his regular name in the comic so...kinda confused here.

 

 

So I guess the crowd here regards Marvel movies very highly.... that's too bad, I wanted to talk about Tarkovsky, Bunuel, Bergman, Kurosawa, Herzog, Bresson

 

 

 

 

 

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAYXCJXJCXCKDLDFKL

 

 

To be honest,I haven't watched anything recently from the group you mention (and nothing from Robert Bresson, but I have mixed feelings about much of French New Wave so have seen only a few things from Truffaut and Goddard).

 

That said, I'd love to hear your thoughts on any of these directors and movies you want to discuss. Even if I haven't seen the film, it might serve as a good recommendation.

 

Sadly Tarkovsky could never conway the same emotional intensity on his characters in Solyaris as the CGI facial expressions as the Hulk in the Avengers.

 

Well he never got a chance to show what he could do, did he? To be honest, I wonder what older directors could have done with the marvels of modern CGI technology.

 

Hitchc ock hated location shooting because he lost partial control of the film to nature - imagine him being able to control everything in studio and make the locations come to life through CGI trickery?  What could he have given us? Or surrealist Buñuel or someone with visual flair like Cocteau being able to let loose their imaginations without being bound by practical effects?

 

 

Sadly the marvel movies are utter shiet for fat American kids. Nearly value-less

 

Weirdly they make a huge amount overseas, so its not just fat American kids. To be honest, though, there's always been a market for adventure fair that lodges between things aimed at kids and things aimed at adults. Serials, the Harryhausen films, Steven Spielberg's 80s output. The Marvel films seem to be filling that niche (and based on their poularity, its working for intended entertainment purposes if not art) and part of the international appeal may lie in that they don't really require a lot of translation (or cultural knowledge) which can sometimes be a barrier for some viewers (unfortunately).

[Blarghagh]

Hitchc ock hated location shooting because he lost partial control of the film to nature - imagine him being able to control everything in studio and make the locations come to life through CGI trickery?  What could he have given us? Or surrealist Buñuel or someone with visual flair like Cocteau being able to let loose their imaginations without being bound by practical effects? 

Probably nothing. Every single example of an artistic director getting free reign and massive budgets has ended in disaster. Limitation breeds creativity.

[Amentep]

 

Hitchc ock hated location shooting because he lost partial control of the film to nature - imagine him being able to control everything in studio and make the locations come to life through CGI trickery?  What could he have given us? Or surrealist Buñuel or someone with visual flair like Cocteau being able to let loose their imaginations without being bound by practical effects? 

Probably nothing. Every single example of an artistic director getting free reign and massive budgets has ended in disaster. Limitation breeds creativity.

 

 

That's not really what I'm saying; there are limitations to CGI as well.  But they're a tool that can allow visualization of things that some practical effects (or even extensive location work) can't replicate.  Just like title cards can't really give the same feel of spoken dialogue, or how black and white is great for stylization but less so for some representations.

[LadyCrimson]

Life Itself - this is not a stand-offish, objective documentary (of Roger Ebert), just to say.  I remember when it came on VoD and I was not ready to watch it. It's on Netflix now and I watched it this morning. The bits about him and Gene's relationship then when Gene died, and then the end of the film, had me weeping like a little girl. Some because those two were childhood icons, some because such endings often reminds me of my own father (Christopher Reeve really hit home at the time, too) and some because ... whether I agreed with them or not on any specific film/points, or even, at times, as people/personas, I still miss both of them and haven't been interested in following any "film critics" now that they're both gone.

 

Thumbs up.

[Oerwinde]

I really liked Roger Ebert because he judged a movie based on what it was trying to accomplish rather than judging based on some impossible standards.

[Meshugger]

I really liked Roger Ebert because he judged a movie based on what it was trying to accomplish rather than judging based on some impossible standards.

 

You forgot the most important part. If he liked/disliked a movie, he would describe well enough for anyone to understand why and made it possible that the reader still determine whether or not the movie itself is worth watching according to those reasons. 

 

That's what made his criticism so good, IMO. Many critics seems to miss this critical part.

[Luj1]

I dunno, my fav movie is probably Stalker. It took me two times to rewatch it to realize that. It really is poetry in motion. My second big favorite is Aguire, Der zone Gott by Herzog. Its also (like Stalker) a "visual" movie , rich in that regard. I like these movies where each take is like a painting. My third fav is either Che ?,a surreal comedy from Polanski, or They Live by Carpenter.

 

also yeah ebert's legit.

[Meshugger]

I dunno, my fav movie is probably Stalker. It took me two times to rewatch it to realize that. It really is poetry in motion. My second big favorite is Aguire, Der zone Gott by Herzog. Its also (like Stalker) a "visual" movie , rich in that regard. I like these movies where each take is like a painting. My third fav is either Che ?,a surreal comedy from Polanski, or They Live by Carpenter.

 

also yeah ebert's legit.

 

Stalker is one of my favourites as well, but i like Solyaris more. Probably due to my personal thoughts about religion, spirituality, love and the human condition. But do not throw Hollywood under the bus, there's some really good stuff out there. 

 

Network probably has the best dialogue in a movie that i know of. It's another personal favourite of mine, but filled with top-actors of the day.

[sorophx]

I don't want to sound like a snob, but I feel you can't really appreciate Stalker without reading the source first. the movie is just too bizarre on its own. also, not Tarkovsky's best for sure. personally, I love Andrei Rublev. 

 

oh, reading that book will also help you appreciate the games more :D

[Luj1]

I have read Road Side Picnic. Many people assume Stalker has something to do with Chernobyl or radiation  but is really a timeless adventure. An advanced civilization that merely passed earth leaves unimaginable consequences. it is a  very good SF novel by the brothers. I also likeTarkovsky's movie  Solaris and its theme.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Luj1

[Blarghagh]

I gotta say, the Solaris remake wasn't as good as the original but sometimes I watch just the first couple of minutes or so because the opening is gorgeous.

[Meshugger]

I have read Road Side Picnic. Many people assume Stalker has something to do with Chernobyl or radiation  but is really a timeless adventure. An advanced civilization that merely passed earth leaves unimaginable consequences. it is a  very good SF novel by the brothers. I also likeTarkovsky's movie  Solaris and its theme.

 

Fun fact: Stanislaw Lem, the writer of the book thought that Tarkovsky was an idiot for focusing on love and disowned the move.

[Luj1]

Yeah I know. He doesn't like Sodenbergh's Solaris either. He said both directors focused on "erotica in space" instead of actually showing the living planet of Solaris. Both versions of Solaris and Stalker are only loosely based on the books anyway.

 

What is interesting for me, is the three people who have died as a consequence of filming Stalker in a toxic environment (director included)

Edited May 8, 2015 by Luj1