Recent movies seen - Page 86 - Adventure Forums
You are viewing an archived version of the site which is no longer maintained.
Go to the current live site or the Adventure Gamers forums
Adventure Gamers

Home Adventure Forums Misc. Chit Chat Recent movies seen


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-19-2006, 04:36 AM   #1701
Senior Member
 
Wimli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiwak View Post
Well I dunno about Lynch but I guess I can see Cronenberg (can't think of any Greenaway off the top of my head, which probably means I haven't seen any). And fair enough, I'm sure Aronofsky will become a major force in the years to come (at which point I'm sure everyone will agree, no matter how much they like them, that Pi and Requiem are his immature works. Hopefully The Fountain will be the start of that (for me, anyways).
Next time you see a Lynch film, pay extra attention to the use of sound in his films. Eg: he sometimes adds low tones to the soundtrack, especially aimed to affect your senses and emotions. It gives an extra disturbing atmosphere to his films. Good example is in Blue Velvet, near the beginning, when he zooms in on some ants deep within a grass field.

And as far as Greenaway is concerned, The Pillow Book pretty much says it all.

Quote:
And yea I've seen Rabid, it's pretty good...for a low-budget horror flick. The premise is fantastic though. I mean, a woman undergoes skin replacement but the cells start doing funky things that create a carnivorous phallus on her armpit that also makes zombies of the people it feeds on. Wow - only in a Cronenberg movie.
Lol, you got that one right. Hm, I'll move them up on my dvds-to-see pile.
Wimli is offline  
Old 10-19-2006, 05:21 AM   #1702
Rabid Tasmanian Devil
 
LeisureSuitedLooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,158
Default

It'd be interesting to see a double feature of existenz and videodrome, side by side, 2 of my favorite Cronenberg films, and both about the dangers of entertainment mixed with technology....
LeisureSuitedLooney is offline  
Old 10-19-2006, 05:53 AM   #1703
is not wierd
 
Spiwak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,148
Default

Yea the two are rather similar, but I'd say Naked Lunch and Videodrome just cos.

Did anybody else see the little four-way interview on the Videodrome DVD between some dude interviewer, John Landis, John Carpenter, and David Cronenberg about when Videodrome was coming out? Hilarious - Cronenberg comes off as such a nerd compared to the other two.
__________________
Spiwak! It's Kawips spelled backwards!
Spiwak is offline  
Old 10-19-2006, 07:01 PM   #1704
Tell me This is It
 
Terabin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 538
Send a message via AIM to Terabin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wimli
It's true that there's a trend in movies to appeal more to the senses
All movies appeal to the senses, at least, I think, in the way that you are talking about. This is why movies are such a compelling art form, because they are visual and aural. And with the nature of the movie theater, it totally sucks in one's attention. It's hard to get lost in a single portrait in an art museum because, most likely, there are portraits lined up next to it, and people walking around, and unless one has the ability to concentrate, it's hard for a single piece to attract that amount of attention. A film in a movie theater is hard to NOT focus on. Especially after you've paid 10 bucks for admittance.
Terabin is offline  
Old 10-20-2006, 01:22 AM   #1705
In an evening of July...
 
kuze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,215
Default

Hustle - Season One
I wonder why I didn't learn about this Britisch show sooner. I think I can say without hesitation that it is one of the best TV series I've seen so far. The quality of every single episode is superb, the characters are absolutely likeable and I love their humor. Can't wait for season two and three.
kuze is offline  
Old 10-20-2006, 12:27 PM   #1706
Senior Member
 
Wimli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terabin View Post
All movies appeal to the senses, at least, I think, in the way that you are talking about. This is why movies are such a compelling art form, because they are visual and aural. And with the nature of the movie theater, it totally sucks in one's attention. It's hard to get lost in a single portrait in an art museum because, most likely, there are portraits lined up next to it, and people walking around, and unless one has the ability to concentrate, it's hard for a single piece to attract that amount of attention. A film in a movie theater is hard to NOT focus on. Especially after you've paid 10 bucks for admittance.
Of course all films appeal to the senses, but you're talking about something else. What I meant is that in recent decades directors have targeted the senses more directly by foregoing or disrupting classic/rational/logic narrative. Visuals and sounds are used to stir certain emotions (through the senses) unrelated to story and narrative. But this is getting to much into postmodern film territory, and maybe we should stay clear of that area.
Wimli is offline  
Old 10-20-2006, 02:46 PM   #1707
Tell me This is It
 
Terabin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 538
Send a message via AIM to Terabin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wimli View Post
Of course all films appeal to the senses, but you're talking about something else. What I meant is that in recent decades directors have targeted the senses more directly by foregoing or disrupting classic/rational/logic narrative. Visuals and sounds are used to stir certain emotions (through the senses) unrelated to story and narrative. But this is getting to much into postmodern film territory, and maybe we should stay clear of that area.
I'm not so sure that just by foregoing onr disrupting classic/rational/logic narrative that that equals an appeal to the senses. There has to be techniques that the filmmakers are using that make that appeal. It IS the case that directors like Darren Aronofsky and David Lynch use experimental aural and visual techniques to distance and objectify the viewer. However, classic Hollywood films (films with conventional narratives) targeted the senses in different ways. Take, for example, the case of any classic Hollywood film starring a famous and beautiful Hollywood persona. With warm lighting and close-ups, I have found that some of the most visceral experiences I have had watching movies have occurred while watching films with conventional narratives. These camera techniques were used to help the viewer more closely identify with the characters onscreen. So there are two different appeals that we are talking about here: the one you are talking about is more of an objectifying technique, the one I am talking about is a subjectifying technique.

Last edited by Terabin; 10-20-2006 at 02:53 PM.
Terabin is offline  
Old 10-20-2006, 06:46 PM   #1708
Creepy Father Figure
 
rlpw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas Dammit!
Posts: 5,107
Default

I just finished watching an old movie called The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao. I saw this when I was a kid and it facinated me to no end. I had been thinking about it for years so I finally looked it up and found it on Netflix (The most wondeful place on the Earth!) and I finally figured out why it haunted me all these years. There was so much play on the human charector that it was a thrill to behold. When you start to look at it all you see is stereotyping and bigotry then it opens up to a buffet of emotions from staring into the mirror (meteforically... most of the time) and seeing things you didnt intend. Fear, self loathing, hopelesness, and a Sea Serpent in a fishbowl (Jaz would love that part).

Most memorable quote:
Mike: Are you an acrobat?
Dr Lao: Only philisophically
rlpw is offline  
Old 10-20-2006, 10:29 PM   #1709
is not wierd
 
Spiwak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,148
Default

Marie Antoinette - I wrote this here "brief review" of it soon as I got home. Not meant to be formal, so forgive the shady writing and what-not.

It's been a long time since Sofia Coppola stunned me with her magnificent Lost in Translation (y'know, that one that should have received the awards Return of the King did), and based on that as well as her haunting Virgin Suicides I could only be but enthusiastic about her latest, Marie Antoinette. The notable difference from her previous two efforts is obvious - why, this is a period piece, which are typically characterized by just about everything not characterized by Coppola's two other movies. Whereas courtly period dramas typically relish in their decadence and flamboyancy, Sofia's style is more simplistic that in itself adds layers of beauty without the visual flair; period pieces love the long shot and still frames to evoke the likeness of a painting, but Coppola keeps her camera moving and probing. So it turns out this new period drama is actually more of a combination of these two distinct styles, and both are used effectively. The period style is used for scenes of pomp and courtly ritual, showcasing the distance between the Austrian-born girl and her newly imposed way of life as a French dauphine. "Private" scenes with the girl, when we see her perspective more or less, is when the camera resumes its intimate contact, allowing us to personally connect. As the trailer has made well known, throughout the movie is flamboyantly modern period clothes that sometiems scale proposterous proportions, as well as music from the 80s (though never in the diegesis, as A Knight's Tale attempted). While these elements could have become gimmicky or silly, Coppola chooses her music to fit the atmosphere--no surprise there--and the extravagant costumes and desserts actually fit this obscurely fanciful setting well.

The movie stars Kirsten Dunst, who carries the weight of the movie, as well as pounds and pounds of wig, on her shoulders fantastically. Without every saying too much dialogue she is able to convey all the range of emotions that Coppola needs from her extravagant, unhappy queen. Jason Schwartzman of Rushmore fame plays Louis XVI with timidity, but as the movie progresses Coppola and Schwartzman turn the oft-ridiculed king into a surprisingly likable, pathetic character.

I'm glad Coppola did not try to turn this into a political statement about the French Revolution; in fact she never shows a glimpse of "common" life at all, but only shows a mob of stereotypical angry villagers cast in shadows as a conclusion to periodically and sparcely given information of the political situation. [SPOILERS AHEAD] I'm also glad that Coppola chose to end it where she did, when many directors might have chosen to go to the beheading and it as a tragedy. While it is clear throughout that the queen is losing popularity among both the upper- and lower-class, the point of the movie is in its portrayal of the young girl as she grows up in the public eye and struggles to please both her French and Austrian families, not the queen. The end leaves us in the position of uncertainty despite knowing what will happen from our history classes, and with the more important maturing of Marie Antoinette, who finally seems to show responsibility--to her subjects, to whom she finally shows herself at the end, and to her husband by deciding to stay by him during the tumultuous final days of the monarchy. [END SPOILERS]

It was a beautiful end to a beautiful movie, and a worthy addition to the career of one of the brightest American directors working today.
__________________
Spiwak! It's Kawips spelled backwards!
Spiwak is offline  
Old 10-21-2006, 02:16 PM   #1710
Senior Member
 
Wimli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terabin View Post
I'm not so sure that just by foregoing onr disrupting classic/rational/logic narrative that that equals an appeal to the senses. There has to be techniques that the filmmakers are using that make that appeal.
You can't attribute everything to techniques. That way you lock out creativity and the artistic. Maybe the techniques haven't changed, the ideas have. Besides, I get the idea you approach this as a black and white situation. Or think that I do. I never said anywhere that films previously did not appeal to viewers, nor that directors these days use different techniques. Disruption of narrative was just one example of how to shift the balance from narrative storytelling to synesthetic storytelling. Again, I'm NOT saying that the latter is lacking in older films and the former is not present in present day films.

Quote:
It IS the case that directors like Darren Aronofsky and David Lynch use experimental aural and visual techniques to distance and objectify the viewer.
I agree on the former, but definitely not on the latter part. Distantiate the viewer? I'm not sure that is always the result, certainly not with Aronofsky and Lynch. When you objectify the viewer, or create a distance, he will rationalize what he sees. That approach will lead to nowhere when you see a Lynch films. Those films rely on pulling the viewer into their own, surreal worlds and the viewer to abandon rationality and objectivity to approach these worlds.

Therefore, I don't think your classification of subjectifying and objectifying can be used here.
Wimli is offline  
Old 10-21-2006, 03:56 PM   #1711
OUATIJ Creator
 
Once A Villain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,640
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiwak View Post
...a worthy addition to the career of one of the brightest American directors working today.
Yeah she's pretty good. I'm glad she found SOMETHING she's good at. She's an abyssmal actress. When she died in The Godfather Part III I was cheering just as Pacino was giving out his incredible scream of grief... Kinda ruined the moment, but I couldn't help it. She SUCKED.
__________________
Ben
Co-Founder Abborado Studios
Lead Designer - Once Upon a Time in Japan: Earth
Once A Villain is offline  
Old 10-21-2006, 04:03 PM   #1712
is not wierd
 
Spiwak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,148
Default

Never saw the third Godfather, but yea I hear she was dreadful in it.

Marie Antoinette is getting a lot more shit than I think it deserves. Particularly because it lacks historical credibility or something like that. Or maybe how "boring" it is. That's the problem with the American movies; you have to deal with mainstream America's opinions, and mainstream America is typically retarded. I decided to read through the rottentomatoes summary of it and, seriously, 70% of these critics are numbskulls (not for simply disliking MA or whatever, but based on their particular writing/reasons). It's sad how so many people still regard film as a vehicle for entertainment or for agendas and not as a vehicle for art or expression as they should.
__________________
Spiwak! It's Kawips spelled backwards!
Spiwak is offline  
Old 10-21-2006, 04:50 PM   #1713
Senior Member
 
lumi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, USA
Posts: 2,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiwak View Post
Never saw the third Godfather, but yea I hear she was dreadful in it.
Not the only bad thing about that movie.
lumi is offline  
Old 10-21-2006, 07:55 PM   #1714
capsized.
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiwak View Post
Never saw the third Godfather, but yea I hear she was dreadful in it.

Come on, she was just a kiddo!


Quote:
It's sad how so many people still regard film as a vehicle for entertainment or for agendas and not as a vehicle for art or expression as they should.
It's equally sad with people thinking the other way around.

And losing your "Virgin Suicides" DVD ain't no fun.
__________________
Look, Mr. Bubbles...!
samIamsad is offline  
Old 10-21-2006, 11:39 PM   #1715
is not wierd
 
Spiwak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,148
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samIamsad View Post
It's equally sad with people thinking the other way around.
Naturally. I like some movies for pure entertainment value, too. I just hate reading crap like "this movie sucks. it was boring" without looking at why the director made any of his/her decisions, especially in regards to the pacing. It's when they think film is purely a means of entertainment, or that the director automatically has some obligation to entertain them for 2 hours or whatever, that I disagree.
__________________
Spiwak! It's Kawips spelled backwards!
Spiwak is offline  
Old 10-22-2006, 01:17 AM   #1716
The Reggienator
 
Kolzig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Vaasa, Finland
Posts: 5,519
Send a message via ICQ to Kolzig Send a message via MSN to Kolzig
Default

I watched Wargames recently, due to the fact that Defcon was released.
__________________
"The old standby, that never got old in the first place. We come back to them weekly, nightly, for hours at a time--and they always deliver. They are pure, timeless, and often taken for granted." - Nick Breckon - Shacknews

My gamesale list *updated 26.8.2007*
Hey, dear people please buy my games, I need money to conquer Europe! Or do something similar.
Kolzig is offline  
Old 10-22-2006, 06:49 AM   #1717
Psychonaut
 
Lucien21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 5,114
Default

Must be nostalgia week.

I watched "Iron Eagle" on the TV yesterday.

Ah the days when a Teenager could steal an F-16 fly into enemy airspace and single handedly rescue his father from jail. Then get back in time to not cause an international incident and be rewarded with a place in the Airforce academy.

Those were the days.
__________________
I'm not insane, my mother had me tested!
Lucien21 is offline  
Old 10-22-2006, 07:58 AM   #1718
is not wierd
 
Spiwak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,148
Default

I saw Preston Sturges' The Lady Eve, Sullivan's Travels, and Unfaithfully Yours yesterday. All brilliant, but I think Lady Eve might be my favorite because I laughed harder and was really into it.

Also saw Sunset Boulevard for the second time. Good show, good show.

Also saw the tail end of Gilda, which had a happy ending. Rita Hayworth was stunning. I was reminded of Mulholland Dr. (Rita in it gets her name from a poster of Gilda).
__________________
Spiwak! It's Kawips spelled backwards!
Spiwak is offline  
Old 10-22-2006, 08:14 AM   #1719
Rabid Tasmanian Devil
 
LeisureSuitedLooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolzig View Post
I watched Wargames recently, due to the fact that Defcon was released.

That's the latest film to get sequelized, going direct-to-DVD...*sigh*.
LeisureSuitedLooney is offline  
Old 10-22-2006, 11:03 AM   #1720
Tell me This is It
 
Terabin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 538
Send a message via AIM to Terabin
Default

I really really wanted to like The Lady Eve when I saw it a couple weeks ago. I love classic Hollywood films! And I love Henry Fonda. But I just really didn't like it at all. It wasn't funny and there wasn't any spark onscreen between Fonda and Stanwyck. There was nothing special about this genre movie for me.

I still need to see Sullivan's Travels, but what I've seen of Sturges so far, sadly, I haven't been very impressed. Any pointers for how to enjoy his work?
Terabin is offline  
 



Thread Tools

 


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.