It's spelled audience participation.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Movies You've Seen Recently |OT| August 2017
- Thread starter Divius
- Start date
It's spelled audience participation.
Hexxen-Panda
Member
Dunkirk
I loved it as an experience; seeing it on 70mm IMAX was such a treat, especially with a filmmaker like Nolan that loves to do as much as possible with practical effects and real locations. The breathtaking cinematography really shines in 70mm film, where the immersion is almost perfect (broken a couple times by the sound mix drawing too much attention to itself.) It really is a testament to their craft and skill that not once did my brain go "oh it's CGI", even at the expense of having period-accurate skylines/lamps/etc.
I'm gonna need a second watch to really digest it as a film, but as an experience, it was truly incredible.
The complaints about the sound mix being uncomfortably loud are valid, especially in IMAX, but I felt that the trailers that came before Dunkirk were truly painful and unpleasant. At least in the movie, the loudness made some emotional impact, whereas in the trailers, it was just pointlessly deafening. I don't even remember anything from that Blade Runner trailer because my ears were starting to hurt.
I loved it as an experience; seeing it on 70mm IMAX was such a treat, especially with a filmmaker like Nolan that loves to do as much as possible with practical effects and real locations. The breathtaking cinematography really shines in 70mm film, where the immersion is almost perfect (broken a couple times by the sound mix drawing too much attention to itself.) It really is a testament to their craft and skill that not once did my brain go "oh it's CGI", even at the expense of having period-accurate skylines/lamps/etc.
That final shot was such a great punctuation to the whole harrowing experience; very much like that Inception top in terms of impact imo.
I'm gonna need a second watch to really digest it as a film, but as an experience, it was truly incredible.
The complaints about the sound mix being uncomfortably loud are valid, especially in IMAX, but I felt that the trailers that came before Dunkirk were truly painful and unpleasant. At least in the movie, the loudness made some emotional impact, whereas in the trailers, it was just pointlessly deafening. I don't even remember anything from that Blade Runner trailer because my ears were starting to hurt.
Since I didn't have a great deal of time or internet access available while I was at my grandparents' place (I did manage to squeeze in a few Harold Lloyd one- and two-reelers, though!), I did make some tremendous progress on creating the scratch list for this years October horror marathon. Not sure if I want to start working from it just quite yet, but things are looking pretty good right now.
HollowCentral
Member
Three Kings (1999)
Starring: George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, Ice Cube, Spike Jonze, Judy Greer, Jim Gaffigan
Director: David O. Russell
This movie really surprised me. I went in not expecting much, not even knowing the cast other than Mark Wahlberg. But this turned out to be a really well done war film. The script in particular was way better than I would've expected. There were a lot of interesting stylistic choices made, especially the use of slow-motion. At times it felt almost like a Coen Brothers movie, with the shot composition and dialogue. George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg both give great performances as they are know to do, and Ice Cube even gave a surprisingly solid performance. And a lot of the Arabic actors also did a fantastic job. However, the first third of the film isn't as well done as the rest, and a couple of the actors stick out as being particularly not great (specifically Mark Wahlberg's wife). But overall, this was an incredibly well made film that gives a great message of bravery and sacrifice. Highly recommended.
Starring: George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, Ice Cube, Spike Jonze, Judy Greer, Jim Gaffigan
Director: David O. Russell
This movie really surprised me. I went in not expecting much, not even knowing the cast other than Mark Wahlberg. But this turned out to be a really well done war film. The script in particular was way better than I would've expected. There were a lot of interesting stylistic choices made, especially the use of slow-motion. At times it felt almost like a Coen Brothers movie, with the shot composition and dialogue. George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg both give great performances as they are know to do, and Ice Cube even gave a surprisingly solid performance. And a lot of the Arabic actors also did a fantastic job. However, the first third of the film isn't as well done as the rest, and a couple of the actors stick out as being particularly not great (specifically Mark Wahlberg's wife). But overall, this was an incredibly well made film that gives a great message of bravery and sacrifice. Highly recommended.
Fancyarcher
Member
The Conjuring 2 - 7 / 10
KraftyKrankins
Member
I'm writing this as I'm finishing the movie. It's equal parts diamond and a stinking trash heap. Aamir and the two female leads were mostly enjoyable, as was the chemistry between the leads, but everything else is so subpar it makes it feel disjointed. It feels like two completely different movies spliced together.
idontevengiveafuckanymore/10
Edit: Wait, there's like 15 more minutes left. Help.
Edit 2: This turned into The Matrix. Whythef....
Baroquemantic
Member
The Girl With All the Gifts
Ummm, wow. What a way to end that, huh? I'm actually taken aback by it.
Honestly, fuck that ending. that last 10-15 minutes or whatever it was kinda soured my thoughts on the movie. It was really damn good, and then that BS.
Anyway, between this and The Last of Us, I'm actually a bit terrified by the thought of cordyceps one day spreading to humans. It'll probably never happen, but still.
7/10
Ummm, wow. What a way to end that, huh? I'm actually taken aback by it.
Honestly, fuck that ending. that last 10-15 minutes or whatever it was kinda soured my thoughts on the movie. It was really damn good, and then that BS.
Anyway, between this and The Last of Us, I'm actually a bit terrified by the thought of cordyceps one day spreading to humans. It'll probably never happen, but still.
7/10
Messofanego
Banned
Confirmed, AngmarsKing701 can't watch a movie fully if they feature a green-eyed redhead cause he too busy jerking it.
TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared
Member
I keep trying to motivate myself to go and see The Emoji Movie but.. I just can't.
Captain Smoker
Member
Lolita
Well, this is a movie with a pretty tabu topic (old guy falls in love with teen girl).
Overall good movie, but it lacks a bit of ups & downs / strong emotion.
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Now I'm getting to the more famous Kubrick movies.
Ever since I read the title of the movie I asked myself what this is about. ^^
It's pretty entertaining and it portrays the crazy idea behind MAD (Mutual assured destruction) and how fragile this system can be in theory.
But overall the movie didn't strike me as much as others, probably because it lacks a bit of emotion, I can't point my finger to it.
2001: A Space Odyssey
Space Odyssey, probably Kubricks most famous and influental work.
First of all: I was amazed how good this movie looks, I had to check the release year twice. ^^
I'm a huge fan of science fiction movies, but never saw movies older than Episode IV, so it's amazing to see such a good design, especially the artificial gravity effect for that time.
You can see how this movie paved the way for other big names in the genre, Star Wars, Blade Runner, Alien, etc.
The cinematography is rad as well.
HAL is awesome and frightening (a contemporary problem with all the AIs to boot) and the end of the movie is a psychedelic mindfuck.
My only problem about the "conclusion" of the movie is that I appreciete philosophical, awkward stuff, but if they leave the door totally open for interpretation...
I don't know, I can't like it as much as if the movie gives me some hints how to look at it. (The last movie like this that I saw was "Lost Highway")
Granted, it's not as crazy as Lost Highway. ^^
Overall it's a great movie which absorbs you into its unique atmosphere.
Edit: Special mention to the
HAL dying scene, it's pretty powerful with HAL begging for his "life", slowly dying and singing the song.
AngmarsKing701
Member
Hey! You forgot the freckles.
ronaldthump
Member
Annabelle 2.
6/10
better than movie one but I thought it fell apart.
6/10
better than movie one but I thought it fell apart.
Red Sun
Given the lineage of the samurai film --> spaghetti western, an east-meets-west mashup of the two genres sounds pretty cool. When the cast assembled includes Charles Bronson, Toshiro Mifune, and Alain Delon as the stars, it sounds like the coolest fucking thing that could ever be put to film. The end result is a movie that doesn't quite live up to that pedigree, but is still a good time.
Bronson is a lot more laid back and less intense than he is in, say, Once Upon a Time in the West; not quite comic relief, but a more animated counterpart to Mifune's straight man (or in other words, Bronson is the Kikuchiyo to Mifune's Kambei). Their odd-couple-with-eventual-begrudging-respect-for-each-other chemistry together is really the centerpiece of the movie, and it helps keep things entertaining even when the pacing occasionally drags. Delon also makes for a good heel, though he's only really prominent in the beginning and ending sections of the film.
It may not be a genre classic, but it's a solid premise for uniting two of the western and samurai film's biggest stars together (and it's a very cinematic historic team-up, given that not only was Mifune in Seven Samurai and Bronson in The Magnificent Seven, but Mifune also starred in Yojimbo, which was the inspiration for Leone's A Fistful of Dollars; Bronson was offered that movie, which he turned down, only to later star in Once Upon a Time in the West for Leone). The chemistry of the Bronson/Mifune pairing, supplemented by some strong action sequences by director Terence Young (who also directed three of the first four Connery Bond films), make for one of my new favorite spaghetti westerns.
7/10
Given the lineage of the samurai film --> spaghetti western, an east-meets-west mashup of the two genres sounds pretty cool. When the cast assembled includes Charles Bronson, Toshiro Mifune, and Alain Delon as the stars, it sounds like the coolest fucking thing that could ever be put to film. The end result is a movie that doesn't quite live up to that pedigree, but is still a good time.
Bronson is a lot more laid back and less intense than he is in, say, Once Upon a Time in the West; not quite comic relief, but a more animated counterpart to Mifune's straight man (or in other words, Bronson is the Kikuchiyo to Mifune's Kambei). Their odd-couple-with-eventual-begrudging-respect-for-each-other chemistry together is really the centerpiece of the movie, and it helps keep things entertaining even when the pacing occasionally drags. Delon also makes for a good heel, though he's only really prominent in the beginning and ending sections of the film.
It may not be a genre classic, but it's a solid premise for uniting two of the western and samurai film's biggest stars together (and it's a very cinematic historic team-up, given that not only was Mifune in Seven Samurai and Bronson in The Magnificent Seven, but Mifune also starred in Yojimbo, which was the inspiration for Leone's A Fistful of Dollars; Bronson was offered that movie, which he turned down, only to later star in Once Upon a Time in the West for Leone). The chemistry of the Bronson/Mifune pairing, supplemented by some strong action sequences by director Terence Young (who also directed three of the first four Connery Bond films), make for one of my new favorite spaghetti westerns.
7/10
I just about watched this last night. Forgot why I'd added it but seeing your review reminded me.
TissueBox
Member
Hey you're gonna be seeing Kubrick's best film aka Barry Lyndon soon! ^^' Ugh so good... and yeah 2001 is still very visually gripping, too. Tinfoilers pinned Apollo 11's moonlanding footage to Kubrick for what in retrospect is testament lol.
This sounds...interesting, to say the least.
Puck Beaverton
Banned
HollowCentral
Member
3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Starring: Glenn Ford, Van Heflin
Director: Delmer Daves
Was honestly kind of disappointed in this one. I liked the setup of the plot (I really like the idea of characters hanging out in one place for the entirety of the film), and Glenn Ford and Van Heflin have great chemistry and work off each other incredibly well. In addition, the second half is much stronger, as the plot thickens and the drama intensifies. Unfortunately, the first half of the film is incredibly weak. A lot of the characters that are introduced don't have any significance to the plot, and for a western it's pretty dull. Whenever the camera focuses on most anyone other than Ford and Heflin, it seems to lose a little bit of steam. The plot also isn't explained very well at times. But the final 30 minutes almost make up for the lackluster first half. Overall, not quite as good as I was expecting, but by no means a bad film. Anyone know if the remake is any better?
Starring: Glenn Ford, Van Heflin
Director: Delmer Daves
Was honestly kind of disappointed in this one. I liked the setup of the plot (I really like the idea of characters hanging out in one place for the entirety of the film), and Glenn Ford and Van Heflin have great chemistry and work off each other incredibly well. In addition, the second half is much stronger, as the plot thickens and the drama intensifies. Unfortunately, the first half of the film is incredibly weak. A lot of the characters that are introduced don't have any significance to the plot, and for a western it's pretty dull. Whenever the camera focuses on most anyone other than Ford and Heflin, it seems to lose a little bit of steam. The plot also isn't explained very well at times. But the final 30 minutes almost make up for the lackluster first half. Overall, not quite as good as I was expecting, but by no means a bad film. Anyone know if the remake is any better?
Yup. He wants to make it in the tradition of 60s American experimental film, do new interviews with surviving Factory people and Yule, Cale and Tucker (the last of which should be interesting considering she's, uh, nuts), dig up as much archival footage as he can (which is quite the task cause from what I've read and seen there's not a ton from when the band existed), and said his conception of it so far is most similar to Poison. Sounds like a dream movie.
Yeah, it's better.
HollowCentral
Member
Ok, cool, I'll be sure to check it out then. I really think the premise has promise, so it'll be good to see a better executed version.
Pocahontas (1995): The discourse around Pocahontas now is heavily about the obvious incongruity of the lovey-dovey ending of the film with what happened afterward, and yeah, that's undeniable, and somebody should have thought of that at some point in developing this. This and The Hunchback of Notre Dame were commissioned in the aftermath of Disney earning a Best Picture nomination for Beauty and the Beast, aiming to push the subject matter of Disney's animated features further into the adult realm. In both cases, I think they wandered down avenues that ultimately weren't really appropriate for a family film; Hunchback is a flawed masterwork as a result, Pocahontas is a lesser effort, though not without merit.
Anyway, on the positive side, the first thing that the film has to recommend is the divine voice of Judy Kuhn, backed by Alan Menken at the peak of his creative powers; the songs overall aren't as memorable as the earlier Renaissance films, but his compositions for the score are marvelous, and Kuhn's numbers are terrific. The film is a marvel, aesthetically; the use of colour is wonderful, and the staging is impressive (see, e.g., the climactic "Savages" number). And there are some very mature storytelling choices here; in particular, I can't think of any other Hollywood animated film where the main couple don't end up together, voluntarily parting because of different obligations (you might say that that's inherent in the subject, but look at all the other stuff they changed).
This is the first time I've watched the whole thing since childhood, and seeing Mel Gibson's voice coming out of a human character who looks nothing at all like Gibson was frequently distracting. I guess there's some logic to tailoring celebrity voice actors' roles after their physical appearances.
Anyway, on the positive side, the first thing that the film has to recommend is the divine voice of Judy Kuhn, backed by Alan Menken at the peak of his creative powers; the songs overall aren't as memorable as the earlier Renaissance films, but his compositions for the score are marvelous, and Kuhn's numbers are terrific. The film is a marvel, aesthetically; the use of colour is wonderful, and the staging is impressive (see, e.g., the climactic "Savages" number). And there are some very mature storytelling choices here; in particular, I can't think of any other Hollywood animated film where the main couple don't end up together, voluntarily parting because of different obligations (you might say that that's inherent in the subject, but look at all the other stuff they changed).
This is the first time I've watched the whole thing since childhood, and seeing Mel Gibson's voice coming out of a human character who looks nothing at all like Gibson was frequently distracting. I guess there's some logic to tailoring celebrity voice actors' roles after their physical appearances.
AngmarsKing701
Member
My son's football practice was canceled due to it raining cats & dogs outside, so we're going to rent King Arthur: Legend of the Sword.
As someone who is currently writing a novella per month in a GAF Writing Challenge on this very subject, I will be interested in how incredibly, massively different our perspectives are.
As someone who is currently writing a novella per month in a GAF Writing Challenge on this very subject, I will be interested in how incredibly, massively different our perspectives are.
HollowCentral
Member
My mom saw it and loved it. For whatever that's worth.
HollowCentral
Member
I might watch either Frost/Nixon, Jaws or Parkland tonight. Any suggestions?
Detroit (2017) - Infuriating, intense and superbly acted. Could definitely do with trimming a little bloat here and there especially with the singer subplot and it's not as good as Bigelow's two prior films, but still thoroughly engrossing and HOLY SHIT, Will Poulter was all kinds of terrifying in this. 8/10
Parkland blows. Frost/Nixon is great though.
Tears of the Sun (2003)
As usual, Ebert pretty much sums up my thoughts. With an essentially nonexistent screenplay, it has some great performances and memorable cinematography, ending with your standard Hollywood blockbuster conclusion. I was really surprised to see this thing had a $100 million budget. No surprise it flopped.
But I'll admit I could have watched many more movies with this team going on ops.
As usual, Ebert pretty much sums up my thoughts. With an essentially nonexistent screenplay, it has some great performances and memorable cinematography, ending with your standard Hollywood blockbuster conclusion. I was really surprised to see this thing had a $100 million budget. No surprise it flopped.
But I'll admit I could have watched many more movies with this team going on ops.
HollowCentral
Member
I mean, I got Parkland for $1 for the Blu-Ray, so I'm not expecting much. Probably just gonna watch Scrubs though, but I'll definitely watch Frost/Nixon sometime this week.
AngmarsKing701
Member
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) - so first let me say I'm a huge King Arthur nut. Have been since as long as I can remember (and I'm 50, so that's a pretty long time). Love Excalibur, one of my favorite Arthur retellings. But also really enjoy Sword in the Stone for telling the story from a younger perspective. First Knight of course goes full on love triangle, while the 2004 King Arthur at least gives Guinevere something to do besides look pretty and be swept away by Lancelot.
All of that being said, the Arthur legend often has more to do with those surrounding Arthur. Lancelot and Guinevere's affair. Percival, Bors and Galahad chasing the Holy Grail. Merlin being all magical and whatnot. Arthur can at times be given a backseat to the characters within the kingdom of Camelot.
Which is why I love twists on the story. It's why my own rendition--which I am currently in the midst of writing and releasing--is a twist on the story (or perhaps a suggestion of the real story behind the embellishment bards have added over the years).
All of this as backdrop to say I really liked this movie. Oh, it has its problems. The super fast cuts, the montages, the slow-mo (Guy Ritchie loves his slow-mo), the deus ex machina that gets Arthur where he needs to be at the end. Those are just a few.
But placing Arthur as an Aladdin-like street rat, where he shows his leadership character in his upbringing, is a great twist. The stone in which the blade rests was so fucking epic I practically jumped out of my seat. The sequences of him mastering the sword are incredible, and the final battle made me put the 4K version of this on my wish list for Christmas.
There's no love triangle to get in the way here. There's no focus on other characters taking away from Arthur the Street Rat becoming Arthur the King, and I think Charlie Hunnam did a fantastic job in staying true to that character throughout, despite the fantastical nature of that journey.
4 / 5
All of that being said, the Arthur legend often has more to do with those surrounding Arthur. Lancelot and Guinevere's affair. Percival, Bors and Galahad chasing the Holy Grail. Merlin being all magical and whatnot. Arthur can at times be given a backseat to the characters within the kingdom of Camelot.
Which is why I love twists on the story. It's why my own rendition--which I am currently in the midst of writing and releasing--is a twist on the story (or perhaps a suggestion of the real story behind the embellishment bards have added over the years).
All of this as backdrop to say I really liked this movie. Oh, it has its problems. The super fast cuts, the montages, the slow-mo (Guy Ritchie loves his slow-mo), the deus ex machina that gets Arthur where he needs to be at the end. Those are just a few.
But placing Arthur as an Aladdin-like street rat, where he shows his leadership character in his upbringing, is a great twist. The stone in which the blade rests was so fucking epic I practically jumped out of my seat. The sequences of him mastering the sword are incredible, and the final battle made me put the 4K version of this on my wish list for Christmas.
There's no love triangle to get in the way here. There's no focus on other characters taking away from Arthur the Street Rat becoming Arthur the King, and I think Charlie Hunnam did a fantastic job in staying true to that character throughout, despite the fantastical nature of that journey.
4 / 5
HollowCentral
Member
The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) - Rewatch
Starring: Danny Elfman, Catherine O'Hara, Paul Reubens
Director: Henry Selick
First of all, don't ask me to explain why I watched a "holiday" movie in the middle of summer. Maybe I just wanted to. And in my opinion, when something gets labeled as simply a "holiday film" it looses a little bit of what makes film an art form. So when something like this works, not just during the holiday season, but any time, I would consider it to be a pretty great movie. And that's what this movie is: a pretty damn great movie. The animation holds up well, the music is still fantastic (the weakest easily being Sally's song, unfortunately), and all of the characters are just so much fun to watch. Seeing it again actually gave me 2 things to talk about that I hadn't noticed before, one good, one bad. The good is that this movie could be an analogy for the dangers of cultural appropriation. You have characters visiting a place very different from their own, learning about the customs and traditions of that place, and taking it for themselves, only to completely misunderstand the point of said customs and ruin what makes them so special. The movie obviously doesn't encourage not experiencing other cultures, as the ending demonstrates, but instead encourages people to understand what makes these cultures different from our own and what makes their customs so special. As for the negative, the timeline of the movie seems a little broken. When Jack discovers Christmas Town, it's 1 - 2 days after Halloween is over. That makes it the start of November. Let's say it's 3 days after Halloween when Jack tries to explain Christmas to the townspeople. After that, he spends a lot of time in his study. Once he decides to do Christmas for himself, the clock says that there's a month till Christmas. So, Jack's been in his study for almost an entire month? Doing what exactly? His experiments should've taken only about a week from what we're shown, so that doesn't make much sense. But weirdest of all is the timeline of Lock, Shock and Barrel. It only takes them a day to capture the Easter Bunny. But they return to the doors before the clock is shown saying 30 day. And it's not till Christmas Eve that they return with Santa. Why did it take one day to capture the Easter Bunny, but a month to capture Santa? Were they just dicking around for a month? It's not clear. I know this is kind of nitpicking, but it's just something I noticed. Overall though, this movie is still fantastic. I'll probably watch it 2 more times this year, around Halloween and Christmas. And it'll probably be just as great then as it is now.
Starring: Danny Elfman, Catherine O'Hara, Paul Reubens
Director: Henry Selick
First of all, don't ask me to explain why I watched a "holiday" movie in the middle of summer. Maybe I just wanted to. And in my opinion, when something gets labeled as simply a "holiday film" it looses a little bit of what makes film an art form. So when something like this works, not just during the holiday season, but any time, I would consider it to be a pretty great movie. And that's what this movie is: a pretty damn great movie. The animation holds up well, the music is still fantastic (the weakest easily being Sally's song, unfortunately), and all of the characters are just so much fun to watch. Seeing it again actually gave me 2 things to talk about that I hadn't noticed before, one good, one bad. The good is that this movie could be an analogy for the dangers of cultural appropriation. You have characters visiting a place very different from their own, learning about the customs and traditions of that place, and taking it for themselves, only to completely misunderstand the point of said customs and ruin what makes them so special. The movie obviously doesn't encourage not experiencing other cultures, as the ending demonstrates, but instead encourages people to understand what makes these cultures different from our own and what makes their customs so special. As for the negative, the timeline of the movie seems a little broken. When Jack discovers Christmas Town, it's 1 - 2 days after Halloween is over. That makes it the start of November. Let's say it's 3 days after Halloween when Jack tries to explain Christmas to the townspeople. After that, he spends a lot of time in his study. Once he decides to do Christmas for himself, the clock says that there's a month till Christmas. So, Jack's been in his study for almost an entire month? Doing what exactly? His experiments should've taken only about a week from what we're shown, so that doesn't make much sense. But weirdest of all is the timeline of Lock, Shock and Barrel. It only takes them a day to capture the Easter Bunny. But they return to the doors before the clock is shown saying 30 day. And it's not till Christmas Eve that they return with Santa. Why did it take one day to capture the Easter Bunny, but a month to capture Santa? Were they just dicking around for a month? It's not clear. I know this is kind of nitpicking, but it's just something I noticed. Overall though, this movie is still fantastic. I'll probably watch it 2 more times this year, around Halloween and Christmas. And it'll probably be just as great then as it is now.
Rhomega Beta
Member
Copying and pasting from my Amazon review.
A Life in Waves: In looking for recommendations for New Age music through iTunes years ago, I discovered the album Pure Romance by Suzanne Ciani, and I loved it. I later bought Pianissimo III. Out of curiosity, I wanted to see if she had a Wikipedia page at all, and not only did she have one, but I discovered all this work she had previously done in advertisements and the use of synthesizers, and I subsequently bought The Seven Waves (which I also love). Now, she has her own documentary, brought up by Kickstarter.
A Life in Waves is an examination on her life and career that I wanted to see. Where she went to college, getting into electronic music, showing her work on her Buchla synthesizer, samples of her advertisement work, and old interviews (such as her work on the Xenon pinball table). Of course, I'm also here for the music I fell in love with, and it does cover her musical career with The Seven Waves and her entrance into the New Age genre (side note, this movie also features interviews with Kitaro, whom I'm also familiar with). It does cover her own personal life outside of music, and I'm glad she made the move she had to.
It's really a movie for the fans, but I do recommend her music, and if you do like it, or if you remember those late '70s, early '80s commercials, give this a watch.
A Life in Waves: In looking for recommendations for New Age music through iTunes years ago, I discovered the album Pure Romance by Suzanne Ciani, and I loved it. I later bought Pianissimo III. Out of curiosity, I wanted to see if she had a Wikipedia page at all, and not only did she have one, but I discovered all this work she had previously done in advertisements and the use of synthesizers, and I subsequently bought The Seven Waves (which I also love). Now, she has her own documentary, brought up by Kickstarter.
A Life in Waves is an examination on her life and career that I wanted to see. Where she went to college, getting into electronic music, showing her work on her Buchla synthesizer, samples of her advertisement work, and old interviews (such as her work on the Xenon pinball table). Of course, I'm also here for the music I fell in love with, and it does cover her musical career with The Seven Waves and her entrance into the New Age genre (side note, this movie also features interviews with Kitaro, whom I'm also familiar with). It does cover her own personal life outside of music, and I'm glad she made the move she had to.
It's really a movie for the fans, but I do recommend her music, and if you do like it, or if you remember those late '70s, early '80s commercials, give this a watch.
HollowCentral
Member
Coraline (2009) - Rewatch
Starring: Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, Ian McShane, Keith David
Director: Henry Selick
The last time I saw this movie, I was barely old enough to remember any of it; I was maybe 10 or 11. Because of that, I've wanted to rewatch it for sometime now, and since I've been on a Tim Burton stop-motion kick, I decided to finally do it. And I'm glad I did. This movie works so beautifully. As twisted and weird as it is, it still feels like a lot of heart went into making it. The voice acting is pretty great, especially from Dakota Fanning, who really brings Coraline to life. The storyline is what makes this film really shine though. It feels so different from most other animated movies, and yet the ideas are things that people wrestle with their entire lives. However, it's not perfect, my biggest gripe being that the animation, and the voice actors, sometimes have a tendency to slip into being over animated, especially some of the movements of the characters, but one could argue that those over exaggerations add to the creep factor, much in the same way that the poor voice-acting in early Resident Evil and Silent Hill games add to the feeling of dread in those as well. My only other complaint is that the visuals haven't held up amazingly with time, but that's something that can be looked past. Really, it just comes down to this being a fantastic film. and one that stands out in the crowded animation genre as being truly original and unique (ironic, considering it was based upon a book).
Starring: Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, Ian McShane, Keith David
Director: Henry Selick
The last time I saw this movie, I was barely old enough to remember any of it; I was maybe 10 or 11. Because of that, I've wanted to rewatch it for sometime now, and since I've been on a Tim Burton stop-motion kick, I decided to finally do it. And I'm glad I did. This movie works so beautifully. As twisted and weird as it is, it still feels like a lot of heart went into making it. The voice acting is pretty great, especially from Dakota Fanning, who really brings Coraline to life. The storyline is what makes this film really shine though. It feels so different from most other animated movies, and yet the ideas are things that people wrestle with their entire lives. However, it's not perfect, my biggest gripe being that the animation, and the voice actors, sometimes have a tendency to slip into being over animated, especially some of the movements of the characters, but one could argue that those over exaggerations add to the creep factor, much in the same way that the poor voice-acting in early Resident Evil and Silent Hill games add to the feeling of dread in those as well. My only other complaint is that the visuals haven't held up amazingly with time, but that's something that can be looked past. Really, it just comes down to this being a fantastic film. and one that stands out in the crowded animation genre as being truly original and unique (ironic, considering it was based upon a book).
KraftyKrankins
Member
Was gonna do Kiraostami's Close-Up today but this movie's similarities to the Before trilogy were what drew me into it. I'm curious as to what my impression would've been of it if I hadn't seen quite a few "walkie-talkies" as I call them already. I loved the experimental nature of it(wouldn't wanna spoil it, you have to see it for yourself) but the first half did drag a little and if it wasn't for the other stuff going on in it I wouldn't have been so impressed. It's been many years, if ever, since I've seen a movie that does the same thing with it's characters as this one does.
Watched Logan.
It's a very solid movie (wouldn't call it a superhero movie) with some good action, and some interesting twists on how they usually handle these things.
I especially like Patrick Stewart senile interpretation of Xavier in it, but i have to take issue by the incredibly clichè arc of Logan himself, in relation to the kid.
They really went with the "brute with the heart of gold, that initially looks out for himself, but then sacrifices to save the kid" parable? I was expecting them to toy with the idea more.
Still, i'm surprised they went this dark, considering how this would "taint" any other movie set in the same universe for them (basically, no matter what they do, the future will turn out bleak af).
I appreciate it taking itself seriously, i can't watch anymore "self aware" bullshit from Marvel.
It's a very solid movie (wouldn't call it a superhero movie) with some good action, and some interesting twists on how they usually handle these things.
I especially like Patrick Stewart senile interpretation of Xavier in it, but i have to take issue by the incredibly clichè arc of Logan himself, in relation to the kid.
They really went with the "brute with the heart of gold, that initially looks out for himself, but then sacrifices to save the kid" parable? I was expecting them to toy with the idea more.
Still, i'm surprised they went this dark, considering how this would "taint" any other movie set in the same universe for them (basically, no matter what they do, the future will turn out bleak af).
I appreciate it taking itself seriously, i can't watch anymore "self aware" bullshit from Marvel.
Inferno313
Banned
Watched Paterson and fucking loved it. It's such a quiet, small, slice-of-life film. But it really blew me away. It contains one of the best performances I've seen from Driver, an actor who I enjoy quite a bit, as he really just embodies the life of this average guy who aspires to be something more. Like one of my favorite films, Inside Llewyn Davis, this is the story of the struggles and challenges of aspiring to be an artist. It's a very humanist film, and despite the relatively low stakes compared to other films, it managed to absolutely crush me with one moment towards the end of the film. In part, because of how realistic and true-to-life it felt. Highly recommend this film.
Jarmusch has always been a bit of a blind spot for me, but having this film really click with me made me want to work through his catalog of work.
5/5
---
Realized I never made an intro post!
1. What's your favorite Movie? Inside Llewyn Davis and Blade Runner are my two go-tos. In actuality I have like 50 favorite movies.
2. Who's your favorite director? Tough call. I have a ton. I think just in terms of having made the most amount of films that I love, I'd have to hand it to the Coens.
3. Who are your favorite actors/actresses? Fuck, so many! Daniel Day-Lewis, Christian Bale, Michael Fassbender, Oscar Isaac, Marion Cottilard, Idris Elba, Jessica Chastain, Scarlett Johansson, Joaquin Pheonix, the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman, the list kind of goes on and on.
4. Favorite Genre(s)? Anything and everything, though I'm particularly partial to science fiction and noir when it comes to genres.
5. What's your favorite performance in film? I'm gonna cheat and pick a duo. Joaquin and Hoffman in The Master
Here's my Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/Inferno313/
Jarmusch has always been a bit of a blind spot for me, but having this film really click with me made me want to work through his catalog of work.
5/5
---
Realized I never made an intro post!
1. What's your favorite Movie? Inside Llewyn Davis and Blade Runner are my two go-tos. In actuality I have like 50 favorite movies.
2. Who's your favorite director? Tough call. I have a ton. I think just in terms of having made the most amount of films that I love, I'd have to hand it to the Coens.
3. Who are your favorite actors/actresses? Fuck, so many! Daniel Day-Lewis, Christian Bale, Michael Fassbender, Oscar Isaac, Marion Cottilard, Idris Elba, Jessica Chastain, Scarlett Johansson, Joaquin Pheonix, the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman, the list kind of goes on and on.
4. Favorite Genre(s)? Anything and everything, though I'm particularly partial to science fiction and noir when it comes to genres.
5. What's your favorite performance in film? I'm gonna cheat and pick a duo. Joaquin and Hoffman in The Master
Here's my Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/Inferno313/
Puck Beaverton
Banned
I know right. It made my burrito I ate after the movie taste divine.
Discotheque
Banned
loved that Iranian actress in Paterson. its a really nice contemplative movie, my favorite thing Jarmusch has done since that Bill Murray film.
this sounds really interesting, that Bob Dylan movie he made a few years ago was a pretty experimental take on a real life artist as well.
I'm not sure if it will be similarly ambitious but Steve McQueen is working on a 2pac documentary soon and also Andrew Dominik put out a fantastic film about Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds last year too.
this sounds really interesting, that Bob Dylan movie he made a few years ago was a pretty experimental take on a real life artist as well.
I'm not sure if it will be similarly ambitious but Steve McQueen is working on a 2pac documentary soon and also Andrew Dominik put out a fantastic film about Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds last year too.
Definitely recommend Down by Law for something similar-ish and Dead Man for something completely different (but still very good).
HollowCentral
Member
If it's at all better than All Eyez on Me, it'll be the definitive 2Pac movie.
I'm pretty sure the Nick Cave documentary is called One More Time With Feeling. You can say for a fact it's fantastic? I need to justify buying a copy.
Inferno313
Banned
Will definitely have to check them out, happen to know if they're streaming anywhere? I wonder if Filmstruck might have them.
I can also say for a fact it's fantastic. Although it helps that I've been listening to Nick Cave since high school and am a huge fan of his.
Down by Law is on Filmstruck but not the other. Looks to be on the Criterion side though.
Puck Beaverton
Banned
jarmusch is so good
coffee and cigarretes is on amazon prime I think. not his best, but there are a couple segments there that are aces.
coffee and cigarretes is on amazon prime I think. not his best, but there are a couple segments there that are aces.
HollowCentral
Member
I'm a pretty big fan of his too, which is why I've been considering getting a copy to see it (usually I don't buy a movie until I've seen it at least once). Guess I will now.
If you're already a fan, then I definitely think it's a must-buy; it's a great doc. But if you're on the fence, it's also streaming on Prime now.
TheGreenArrow
Member
The Blackcoat's Daughter. 2/10
Pretty terrible.
Pretty terrible.
HollowCentral
Member
Does anyone know if Brigsby Bear's gone wide yet? Cause according to Wikipedia it was supposed to go wide on July 28, but none of the theaters near me are showing it.
Edit: Never mind. just looked on their website. Gonna have to wait for the home release, since it won't be anywhere near me.
Damn.
Edit: Never mind. just looked on their website. Gonna have to wait for the home release, since it won't be anywhere near me.
Damn.