Get him to the greek 1/10
jesus f’n christ. another terrible tarantino 2010 favorite. i actually felt bad after watching it.
cyborg cop 5/10
ok dtv action effort.
[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]I take the Armond White remark as a compliment, since he is an incredibly intelligent man who can tell you exactly why he did or did not like a movie, and constantly provides good analysis. If you however watned to imply that I am a contrarian just for the fun of it, you would be wrong.
[/quote]
I was just referring to your views which are often contrary to the rest of the Archives, much like Armond. Nothing more to be read into that.
I do respect Armond White because he is able to explain exactly why he did or did not like a work, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call him incredibly intelligent or praise his analysis. He uses grandiose convoluted language which gives you the impression that he’s saying more than he really is.
I don’t read much in the way of “reviews”, so to speak. Most of what I read falls into the category of critical analysis - like Senses of Cinema or Sight and Sound, and I wrote quite a bit of analysis while I was in university on subjects from film to video games. The reason I say this is because while I understand critical language and the process of analysis, when I read White’s work, I find a lot of what he says essentially meaningless.
Not saying that he’s unintelligent. I think he’s quite intelligent and I enjoy reading his work, but he’s not in the same league as Steven Jay Schneider or Hoberman or Rosenbaum or Rayns.
Anyway, went a bit off on a tangent there.
[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]
The Toy Story movies are for kids and teens. then to not completely piss of adults who were dragged along they throw in one or two adult jokes in each movie, like “Uh oh, rocket envy!”
[/quote]
I think it’s the opposite. I think it was made for adults, thematically at least, and decorated in the attractions of children’s entertainment.
I have no idea what you see when you watch these films. You are welcome to your opinions and I’m not trying to sway you or deride you for them, but it really blows my mind. Toy Story is too intelligent and witty and lovingly-made a film to be only for kids.
Perhaps what I find so strange is that you think Toy Story is dumbed down and that Knight and Day is a great film. I loved Knight and Day too, but I will admit that it was mostly a visual action experience for me, whereas Toy Story is beautifully written.
I agree wholeheartedly about Disney and Ghibli. I don’t need to be sold on those works, but to me Toy Story is among them. It gets better and sadder the older I get.
[quote=“Sgt. Geoi Donowitz”][quote=“jonitapani”][quote=“Sgt. Geoi Donowitz”]Oh yeah. I’ve said that before. If Fincher used film, it’d just be a massive waist of celluloid, and they’d probably still be shooting the freakin’ movie. :laugh: :laugh:[/quote]
I started to think how much Kubrick wasted film back in the days. 
He was a perfectionist as we all know.[/quote]
Yeh, but he had real oldschool working actors to work with. Maybe it wasn’t so difficult to get the desired shot back then.[/quote]
Well, I’ve read that Kubrick might take about 70 takes from one camera angle. Of course it probably depended on what was in the picture… But still I think he has wasted sooo much film.
[quote=“jonitapani”]
Well, I’ve read that Kubrick might take about 70 takes from one camera angle. Of course it probably depended on what was in the picture… But still I think he has wasted sooo much film.[/quote]
Who cares hes one of the greatest directors of all time and your opinion doesnt count.
I just can’t validate a movie shot digitaly in my mind. Laziness. If your a low budget filmmaker who can’t afford the film then maybe. But a studio movie? Fuck you, Fincher. Especially with the amazing images crafted on film in True Grit and Inglourious Basterds just to name two titles that have recently knocked me out in the photography department.
I wonder if the amount of takes he did for The Social Network has more to do with the fact that he did shoot it video. If it had been on film he might have taken a shorter trip to the same result. Regardless, I don’t really like his movies anyway, so he can shoot on whatever the fuck he wants.
Knight and Day - 1.5/5
Only for Tarantino’s top 20 did I bother with this. The opening was a pleasant surprise but fuck did it go down hill fast. And worse than anything else, was the stunning amount of digital effects in the action scenes.
I can’t stress this enough: CGI EXPLOSIONS, BULLETS HITS, CAR CRASHES AND FIST FIGHTS ARE NOT THRILLING!!!
Is it too much to ask for at this point?
[quote=“Mr.Pink”][quote=“jonitapani”]
Well, I’ve read that Kubrick might take about 70 takes from one camera angle. Of course it probably depended on what was in the picture… But still I think he has wasted sooo much film.[/quote]
Who cares hes one of the greatest directors of all time and your opinion doesnt count.[/quote]
Yeah, I know. I love his work but just thinking out loud. And it wasn’t an opinnion. I don’t say it was wrong him using so much film - look at his work and you know why.
[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]I just can’t validate a movie shot digitaly in my mind. Laziness. If your a low budget filmmaker who can’t afford the film then maybe. But a studio movie? Fuck you, Fincher. Especially with the amazing images crafted on film in True Grit and Inglourious Basterds just to name two titles that have recently knocked me out in the photography department.
[/quote]
I can honestly say that I don’t care. Yeah, you can tell the difference. Sometimes it’s not worth it, but a lot of times they know what they are doing. The film has a style all of its own. Some films like Assassination of Jesse James and anything by Malick put huge stock in beautiful imagery, but that’s really only one aspect of filmmaking.
Besides, Zodiac and Collateral are as beautiful in their own way as any Malick film. I refuse to compare them against each other like there’s only one right way to shoot a film.
It’s not laziness, though. Filmmakers who use digital despite having the money to shoot film use it because of its ability to run long takes and fluidly capture footage. It’s a conscious creative choice that aids their process. If digital allowed me to be that much better a filmmaker, I wouldn’t care either what some celluloid purists thought of my film.
Fine. Just don’t call them filmmakers or their movies films. They lose the privilge of that title.
And as long as you mention Collateral I gotta say that what Mann’s doing with the format is the only digital work I’ve seen that I really enjoy. He’s going for that raw look that only video can caputre, not doing one thing to make it look like another.
Again, fuck David Fincher. Would anyone here care to explain what the big deal is with this guy, and the Social Network while they’re at it. As long as he’s supposed to be the cock of the walk I’d like to know why people think so.
On to a real filmmaker…
Black Swan - 4/5
Aronofsky’s masterpiece to date. I’ve always been interested by his previous work but this is hands down his finest achievement. Still too many “directly behind the neck of actors as they walk” shots, but it’s a small price to pay for one of the best movies I’ve seen this year. Intense and manipulative. Emotional. I can’t say enough about this movie. It hits all the buttons that make me respond to a movie instead of idly observing it. The final ten mintues was dangerously close to becoming convuluted but by that point things were whirring by so fast that it almost didn’t matter.
Now somebody explain it to me like I’m stupid: why The Social Network over Black Swan?
- Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
- The Ghost Writer
- True Grit
- Black Swan
- Greenberg
- Somewhere
- How Do You Know
- The Last Exorcism
- Shutter Island
- Jackass 3/Due Date
[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]Fine. Just don’t call them filmmakers or their movies films. They lose the privilge of that title.
[/quote]
Film is just a story conveyed through moving images. Even animators are considered filmmakers. I don’t know where you got so snobby about this. Having worked with celluloid a number of times, I can honestly understand why directors would want to work with digital. The biggest reason to continue using celluloid is nostalgia. To be honest, I don’t even believe in the “it looks better” argument. What does that even mean? And better in what way? Clearer? Arguably yes. But at the same time, a lot of people will tell you that the problem with digital is that it is too clear.
Celluloid strikes that balance between the clear and the warm and that traditional separation between action and audience. That’s just what we are used to and digital fails at replicating that, but why should it even try? On the flipside, celluloid fails at replicating digital. If digital came first, we may very well be having the reverse of this discussion.
I don’t think directors like Fincher are trying to trick you. They aren’t trying to hide the fact that it’s digital. Most cinematographers are trained and experienced on celluloid and they carry that shooting style over to their digital works. They choose to shoot it straight. Just cause they don’t switch on maximum digital grain like Michael Mann, doesn’t mean they are trying to fool you.
[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]
Again, fuck David Fincher. Would anyone here care to explain what the big deal is with this guy, and the Social Network while they’re at it. As long as he’s supposed to be the cock of the walk I’d like to know why people think so.
[/quote]
Fincher is a remarkable director. He’s one of the only major studio directors working now who can leave his distinct mark on his films and be labeled an auteur despite never writing his own scripts. His films are methodical and excruciatingly detailed. Zodiac is to me his masterpiece. It’s perfection in my mind, or as close to it as I’ve seen in the last decade.
[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]
Now somebody explain it to me like I’m stupid: why The Social Network over Black Swan?
[/quote]
Black Swan was one of my favourite films of the year. I haven’t updated my initial list. I only got to see it on Thursday cause that’s when it came out here. But it’s already number 3.
Why the critics don’t like it as much as Social Network? I’d say cause it’s humourless and also relies on genre conventions, specifically horror. Some critics are turned off by how little respite there is from the darkness. I don’t understand that personally. A lot of people can’t like Requiem for a Dream because they find it depressing, but to me it’s too well made a film for me to not like it. And also, critics are usually pretty snobby about genre. They associate it with a degree of trashiness. It’s absurd, but film criticism has always been like that to a degree.
That’s only a small amount, though. The film was very well-received. Maybe not in comparison to Social Network, but it’s definitely one of the better films of the year in a lot of critics’ minds.
Black Swan - The Story of a Skin Rash
6/10
Fairly decent movie. If you want to see a movie that is very much like Black Swan, only 5 times better, watch “Perfect Blue” by master filmmaker Satoshi Kon.
The Social Network - Does the job, but that’s it, probably better to read the book.
I’m not even bothered by the fact this movie was over hyped as fuck and that it got a shitload of nominations by the Academy Awards.
What bothers me though, is not feeling much while watching a movie. It tells a story, but you don’t have much feelings there. The only feeling I was left with at the end was how much of a failure I was for being so inferior to Zuckerberg’s genius and computer knowledge (counterbalanced by some kind of joy for being a lot better with the people who surround me and having friends though). And also, what a disney-ish ending: Zuckerberg refreshing his facebook page after sending a friends request to his ex-girlfriend? hmmm…
Also, I like Jesse Eisenberg. His performances in Adventureland and Zombieland were good. But he got nominated FOR THIS? Keeping the same face and attitude for 2 hours?
I honestly hope it doesn’t win more than best adapted screenplay and best original soundtrack, and I’m saying that while I have yet to see a lot of the other major nominees (actually pretty much all of them except Inception, which should win best special FX and Screenplay, and then I’m not really sure if I want to see it win more).
No matter how much I bitch each year about the Academy Awards, I always get pissed about it the following year. Each time. I guess I care too much.
Apparently the book is not that great. I’d much rather watch the film.
Ok Angel, duly noted: I’m not gonna buy the book 
I just watched Life in a Day, live streaming from Sundance with youtube. It’s the project of Tony and Ridley Scott. The project is that everyone could film their life on the 24th of July 2010. Then they’d send their tapes/video files to the Scotts if they wanted to have a shot at appearing in the movie. It simply is a patchwork made with pieces of lives of people around the world. So, the movie itself looks a lot like a documentary, and an awesome one with that. There is no voice over or other artificial additions that would have ruined the experience, although there are musics that sublime the picture, they’re that beautifully used. It’s only made of moments, short stories, and emotions (and believe me, it’s a rollercoaster, and a pretty extreme one with that). I just wrote a very long piece about how great this experience was on another forum but it’s in French so I can copy paste it here, and I’m too tired to go into details again (it’s 5:15pm & I have an Italian exam tomorrow O0 but that was totally worth it).
They are gonna do an encore tomorrow at 7pm EST, you should definitely check this out.
To be honest I’ve never experienced something like that in my life. It has its flaws but they are veeeery tiny compared to the overall miraculous work of genius that it is. It simply is one of the most beautiful -yet at times, disgusting films I’ve seen…I was going for “in a while”, but now that it had time to sink in, I’m pretty sure I can go with “, ever”. Watch it, you’d be dumb not to (I know it’s on a Friday night though, but I’d cancel my plans or invite my friends over to watch it with them if I were you).
Acutally Life in a Day was rebroadcast outside the US only, at 7pm for everybody no matter where. So I re-watched it tonight. This time I had a lot of streaming issues that hurt the experience a little, but it was still incredibly beautiful. This movie is different from anything I’ve seen before.
[quote=“Angel”][quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]Fine. Just don’t call them filmmakers or their movies films. They lose the privilge of that title.
[/quote]
Film is just a story conveyed through moving images. Even animators are considered filmmakers. I don’t know where you got so snobby about this. Having worked with celluloid a number of times, I can honestly understand why directors would want to work with digital. The biggest reason to continue using celluloid is nostalgia. To be honest, I don’t even believe in the “it looks better” argument. What does that even mean? And better in what way? Clearer? Arguably yes. But at the same time, a lot of people will tell you that the problem with digital is that it is too clear.[/quote]
That’s the first time someones called me a snob. I take pride in my eclectic tastes. Digital just doesn’t do it for me. It is different, so I can’t imagine digital replacing film. Nor do I want to.
Why do you appear to be so for it? What does it do for you as a viewer? It may be harder to shoot movies on, but come on. Keep it in context. Your making movies for a living, you’re not even handling the film, the cinematographer is. Unless you’re going for the look like Michael Mann, then why bother?
Oh well. I just can’t believe it’s happening.
Is it snobbery to think that directors who shoot digital shouldn’t be called filmmakers? They’re shooting video, they’re videomakers. Is it inaccurate?
The Wages of Fear - 4.5
Pretty fucking good. Suspenseful, thrilling, and surprisingly human. A few times tears came to my eyes. The remake is pretty good too, Sorcerer. If you havn’t seen it give it a shot.
Les Diaboliques 3.5/5
Liked it less than Wages, but still very good.
The Red Shoes - 5/5
Wow. I respectfully disagree with de Palma and Scorsese about it, but regardless, I was knocked on my ass. This is filmmaking.
And another thing! Digtal is way too fucking sharp an image. One of the things I cherish about film is how soft it is, Vilmos Zsigmond taking it to glorious extremes in The Long Goodbye. Beautiful.
[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]
Why do you appear to be so for it? What does it do for you as a viewer?
[/quote]
That’s just it. I’m not “so for it.” I’m not against it either. To me, it’s just an alternative. Not worse or better necessarily. I’m somewhat playing the devil’s advocate here by upping my zeal for digital in light of your criticism, but at the same time I sincerely believe a film doesn’t need to be shot on celluloid to be amazing. I just don’t see a reason to hate it.
And I love celluloid. I really do. JFK blows me away every time. You mentioned Zsigmond. Close Encounters is still an amazing experience. Red Shoes is gorgeous. The Searchers, Days of Heaven, Atonement. Don’t think I don’t go crazy for the cinematography in these films. I’m Australian. Cinematography is the only thing that’s consistently great in Australian films. Russell Boyd, Don McAlpine, Christopher Doyle, Andrew Lesnie, John Seale. Even if the film is only average, you can count on the cinematography being great. It’s not at all that I think digital is superior. And it’s not at all that I don’t appreciate celluloid.
And do I hate a lot of digital films simply because it was handled badly, is not cinematic and frankly just not working? Sure. All the time. Most western filmmakers don’t know how to use digital effectively.
But in the case of Social Network, it’s a real non-issue. And in the case of Public Enemies and Julien Donkey-Boy, it was a beneficial choice.
That’s really all I’m saying.
You should watch this too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT491ctM8Kk. From a purely special effects angle, using digital was logistically a good decision. But I’m sure he uses it cause he can run for an hour with no cuts and use as much tape as he wants.
[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]
Is it snobbery to think that directors who shoot digital shouldn’t be called filmmakers? They’re shooting video, they’re videomakers. Is it inaccurate?
[/quote]
Yes. Cause it’s condescending. It’s implying they are lesser filmmakers because of it. And the final product is still film. They finish with a 35mm print. Not that it matters cause film is just moving images. Images move in digital too.
It’s just a coincedence (?) no movie shot digtally has been great in my eyes. I don’t see the use for it. The day digital photography gets it’s first Red Shoes, I might be less condesending towards it. Until then it remains really goodlooking video, and that ain’t film.
The Social Network - 2.5/5 (rewatch)
I willfully admit that this is a very well crafted movie. David Fincher, while not my favortie director, does an admirable job. The cast is great. Hell, even the look of the movie was pretty cool. But this is the second time I’ve seen it and it suffers the same major flaw at the exact same moment as the first time I saw.
The second the chicken enters the narrative I get suddenly and mind numbingly bored. I don’t care what’s going on. I’ve seen this movie before, under different titles and about more interesting subjects. The sudden inclusion of the chicken only emphasis how completely uninteresting everything else in the movie is.
But that’s just me.
Black Swan, The Social Network, Inception, Toy Story 3, True Grit. All good movies that aren’t anywhere near great. All nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. Haven’t seen the other ones. But I bet 127 Hours and The King’s Speech don’t exactly put the movie world on fire either.
Just shows you how bad and boring 2010 was for movies. 2009 was sizzling in comparison and 2011 is also gonna be much better.
[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]Black Swan, The Social Network, Inception, Toy Story 3, True Grit. All good movies that aren’t anywhere near great. All nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. Haven’t seen the other ones. But I bet 127 Hours and The King’s Speech don’t exactly put the movie world on fire either.
Just shows you how bad and boring 2010 was for movies. 2009 was sizzling in comparison and 2011 is also gonna be much better.[/quote]
This is about the time of year where I see all the movies I missed from earlier in the year and I couldn’t agree more. It is a swell of just alright movies that are just that, alright.
Aside from Scott Pilgrim and True Grit of course. And Black Swan, although I liked it a hell of a lot more before I saw The Red Shoes. I couldn’t imagine someone trying to make another ballerina movie with Red Shoes in the world.
TRON: Legacy 10/10 (in 3-D)
(This has only been out for a week where I live)
Fantastic movie. But unleashed on an overly cynical internet generation with their atrocious been-there-done-that attitude, it has almost flopped.
If this had come out in the more mellowed and fun-loving 80’s, it would have been a smash hit and an immediate classic, like it deserves.
This should have been nominated for an Best Picture Oscar. Instead what we have is a situation where the best movie out of 10 (!) is a semi-good remake of a John Wayne movie that is ultimately pretty forgettable.
Neither the story, the characters, the visuals nor the music bring anything new or innovative to the table of film world, but they all work well and go extremly well hand in hand - which is an art by itself.
Yes, as with many things Disney, it’s highly calculated entertainment - but it’s still damn good entertainment. TRON: Legacy is what movies are supposed to be and have always been supposed to be - Since day one.