Page 2845 of 2861 FirstFirst ... 18452345274527952835284328442845284628472855 ... LastLast
Results 71,101 to 71,125 of 71518

Thread: 28 Film Discussion Threads Later

  1. #71101
    Quote Quoting megladon8 (view post)
    Her style was nice at times, for sure. The odd score by Jonny Greenwood accentuates the juxtaposition you mention.

    But the whole thing just left me feeling...nothing? Whereas I very much got the impression I was supposed to feel quite deeply.
    What I felt mainly was a sense of unease and dread, as if the main character could explode at any moment.
    Just because...
    Julieta (Pedro Almodóvar, 2016) mild
    Flame and Woman (Yoshida Kiju, 1967) mild
    Sunset (László Nemes, 2018) warm

    The last book I read was...
    2666 by Roberto Bolańo


    The (New) World

  2. #71102
    A Platypus Grouchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    9,629
    I agree. It's a beautiful film technically, but I've never recalled it as a great experience.

    Whereas something like We have to talk about Kevin is unforgettable.

  3. #71103
    From Letterboxd:

    74/100

    I was not a fan of Ramsey's Ratcatcher, whose mix of high misery and high art came across as alternately precious and dull; as a result, I avoided everything she did after that. But, given that I think Phoenix is the best actor of his generation, I decided to bite the bullet and give Ramsey another shot...

    And I've glad I did, because this is a fantastic collision of genre pulp nonsense and a directorial vision that eschews genre pulp nonsense, creating the fever dream of a man who was once committed to helping others the institutional way (army, police) but found that it wasn't enough; darkness always finds a way, and the only choice left is to turn it against itself and commit. Joe commits; it's a lumbering, unemotional commitment, but he does what is necessary to redirect the blackness away from innocents and towards the more deserving.

    I've seen some criticize the fact that Nina has no life of her own as a character, but that is the point - the entire film is from Joe's point of view - we do not see any scene between other characters that Joe does not see or hear or hallucinate. Nina is not a character to him. She is a mission, a reminder of what he has committed to doing.

    Ramsey keeps things ragged and jagged, as we tumble through Joe's mind. At times, it becomes a little redundant (the flashbacks to Joe as a kid starts to wear after a while...) but she keeps finding indelible images and connections and jarring editing points to keep us firmly stuck in Joe's perspective.
    I watched this three years ago and do not remember any details of it. I will not be taking any more questions at this time.
    Last 10 Movies Seen
    (90+ = canonical, 80-89 = brilliant, 70-79 = strongly recommended, 60-69 = good, 50-59 = mixed, 40-49 = below average with some good points, 30-39 = poor, 20-29 = bad, 10-19 = terrible, 0-9 = soul-crushingly inept in every way)

    Run
    (2020) 64
    The Whistlers
    (2019
    ) 55
    Pawn (2020) 62
    Matilda (1996) 37
    The Town that Dreaded Sundown
    (1976) 61
    Moby Dick (2011) 50

    Soul
    (2020) 64

    Heroic Duo
    (2003) 55
    A Moment of Romance (1990) 61
    As Tears Go By (1988) 65

    Stuff at Letterboxd
    Listening Habits at LastFM

  4. #71104
    collecting tapes Skitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Neo-Ohio
    Posts
    16,183
    Quote Quoting transmogrifier (view post)
    From Letterboxd:



    I watched this three years ago and do not remember any details of it. I will not be taking any more questions at this time.
    Imo that's the most damning criticism a movie can get. I have more respect for a movie that is bad but memorable than one that's mediocre and instantly forgotten.

  5. #71105
    Quote Quoting Skitch (view post)
    Imo that's the most damning criticism a movie can get. I have more respect for a movie that is bad but memorable than one that's mediocre and instantly forgotten.
    In this case, it is a damning criticism of my brain. It is like that for every single movie I ever watch. I will never, ever remember the details of any movie 3 years later - unless I was involved in massive discussions about it at the time where the details get cemented in my long-term memory.
    Last 10 Movies Seen
    (90+ = canonical, 80-89 = brilliant, 70-79 = strongly recommended, 60-69 = good, 50-59 = mixed, 40-49 = below average with some good points, 30-39 = poor, 20-29 = bad, 10-19 = terrible, 0-9 = soul-crushingly inept in every way)

    Run
    (2020) 64
    The Whistlers
    (2019
    ) 55
    Pawn (2020) 62
    Matilda (1996) 37
    The Town that Dreaded Sundown
    (1976) 61
    Moby Dick (2011) 50

    Soul
    (2020) 64

    Heroic Duo
    (2003) 55
    A Moment of Romance (1990) 61
    As Tears Go By (1988) 65

    Stuff at Letterboxd
    Listening Habits at LastFM

  6. #71106
    Quote Quoting megladon8 (view post)
    I was pretty disappointed with You Were Never Really Here.

    Phoenix is wonderful in it, but the whole film felt...half baked? Under realized?

    I was expecting something horrifically ultra violent, which it definitely wasn't. What was with all the press for this film making it sound so shocking and brutal? It wasn't that at all. Not a knock against it, obviously, but what a weird advertising campaign there was for this, now that I've seen it.

    It all just felt very empty, and by the end credits I wasn't really sure what the point of it all was.
    I felt similarly about YWNRH; it was a pretty good Psychological Thriller that could've, should've been a great one instead, and, despite containing a couple of striking individual moments (like when [
    ]), the overall aesthetic still wasn't as immersive as it should've been, which made the somewhat boilerplate story stick out more, which, at the risk of hyperbole, made it feel less like a grittier version of Drive, and a bit more like an "arthouse" Steven Seagal movie than it should've.

    /hottake

  7. #71107
    Quote Quoting StuSmallz (view post)
    the overall aesthetic still wasn't as immersive as it should've been
    Putting aside that people have only started using "immersiveness" as a criterion of value in the last twenty years or so since The Lord of the Rings came out, the whole concept strikes me as fundamentally anti-aesthetic, the idea being that eventually digital photography will achieve such high resolution and three-dimensionality that it will be indistinguishable from real life. But even if that were possible (and I doubt that it is), it doesn't strike me as very desirable. When I watch The Apu Trilogy I don't feel as if I've been transported to West Bengal (for one thing it's in black and white), but I don't think that makes Satyajit Ray a lesser filmmaker than Peter Jackson. Maybe this is a quaint idea but I think movies should be movies and not real life. And in the case of Ramsay's film, I see little evidence that it was her intention to make an immersive film. The whole point of cutting to security camera footage at one point is to distance the spectator from the protagonist.
    Just because...
    Julieta (Pedro Almodóvar, 2016) mild
    Flame and Woman (Yoshida Kiju, 1967) mild
    Sunset (László Nemes, 2018) warm

    The last book I read was...
    2666 by Roberto Bolańo


    The (New) World

  8. #71108
    I thought You Were Never Really Here was great. Maybe that's my kind of film I guess.
    Blog!

    I really don't care anymore
    About all the Jim-Jim's in this town
    And all the politicians makin' crazy sounds
    And everybody puttin' everybody else down
    And all the dead bodies piled up in mounds

  9. #71109
    A Platypus Grouchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    9,629
    Quote Quoting baby doll (view post)
    Putting aside that people have only started using "immersiveness" as a criterion of value in the last twenty years or so since The Lord of the Rings came out, the whole concept strikes me as fundamentally anti-aesthetic, the idea being that eventually digital photography will achieve such high resolution and three-dimensionality that it will be indistinguishable from real life. But even if that were possible (and I doubt that it is), it doesn't strike me as very desirable. When I watch The Apu Trilogy I don't feel as if I've been transported to West Bengal (for one thing it's in black and white), but I don't think that makes Satyajit Ray a lesser filmmaker than Peter Jackson. Maybe this is a quaint idea but I think movies should be movies and not real life. And in the case of Ramsay's film, I see little evidence that it was her intention to make an immersive film. The whole point of cutting to security camera footage at one point is to distance the spectator from the protagonist.
    I rewatched Drive the other day. That's a good example of a non-immersive film. It goes all out for aesthetic distancing.

  10. #71110
    Drive is probably my favorite movie of the 2010s.
    Blog!

    I really don't care anymore
    About all the Jim-Jim's in this town
    And all the politicians makin' crazy sounds
    And everybody puttin' everybody else down
    And all the dead bodies piled up in mounds

  11. #71111
    collecting tapes Skitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Neo-Ohio
    Posts
    16,183
    Drive is awesome.

  12. #71112
    Dat elevator scene.
    Last Seen:​
    Infinity Train, Book 2: Cracked Reflection (O. Dennis, 2020)
    Wolfwalkers (T. Moore/R. Stewart, 2020)
    Us (J. Peele, 2019) ☆
    Archer, S12 (A. Reed, 2021) ☆
    Infinity Train, Book 1: The Perennial Child (O. Dennis, 2019)
    Brooklyn Nine-Nine, S8 (D. Goor/M. Schur, 2021) ☆
    Spielberg (S. Lacy, 2017) ☆
    Central Park, S2a (J. Gad/L. Bouchard/N. Smith, 2021) ☆
    Batman: The Long Halloween, Part 2 (C. Palmer, 2021) ☆
    Central Park, S1 (J. Gad/L. Bouchard/N. Smith, 2020) ☆

    First time ☆

  13. #71113
    collecting tapes Skitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Neo-Ohio
    Posts
    16,183
    Quote Quoting Philip J. Fry (view post)
    Dat elevator scene.
    Sooooo brilliant. So much is revealed without a word.

  14. #71114
    Quote Quoting Skitch (view post)
    Sooooo brilliant. So much is revealed without a word.
    Yup.
    Last Seen:​
    Infinity Train, Book 2: Cracked Reflection (O. Dennis, 2020)
    Wolfwalkers (T. Moore/R. Stewart, 2020)
    Us (J. Peele, 2019) ☆
    Archer, S12 (A. Reed, 2021) ☆
    Infinity Train, Book 1: The Perennial Child (O. Dennis, 2019)
    Brooklyn Nine-Nine, S8 (D. Goor/M. Schur, 2021) ☆
    Spielberg (S. Lacy, 2017) ☆
    Central Park, S2a (J. Gad/L. Bouchard/N. Smith, 2021) ☆
    Batman: The Long Halloween, Part 2 (C. Palmer, 2021) ☆
    Central Park, S1 (J. Gad/L. Bouchard/N. Smith, 2020) ☆

    First time ☆

  15. #71115
    Quote Quoting baby doll (view post)
    Maybe this is a quaint idea but I think movies should be movies and not real life. And in the case of Ramsay's film, I see little evidence that it was her intention to make an immersive film. The whole point of cutting to security camera footage at one point is to distance the spectator from the protagonist.
    I'm probably misinterpreting what you wrote, but I don't think films should be anything-- that's what makes it an exciting and unique medium. FWIW, I find the Apu trilogy immersive even if it is in black and white (?). It may be lacking some vibrant colors, but that doesn't mean it lacks vibrancy. A little perplexed by this comparison.
    Last edited by quido8_5; 06-04-2021 at 02:17 AM.
    Stuff I've Watched out of *****

    The Last Duel - ***
    Only Murders in the Building: **
    Squid Games: **.5

  16. #71116
    The elevator scene rules. As does the opening scene. And the hotel ambush sequence. That's the short list, really cause I could think of five more at least.
    Blog!

    I really don't care anymore
    About all the Jim-Jim's in this town
    And all the politicians makin' crazy sounds
    And everybody puttin' everybody else down
    And all the dead bodies piled up in mounds

  17. #71117
    Quote Quoting quido8_5 (view post)
    I'm probably misinterpreting what you wrote, but I don't think films should be anything-- that's what makes it an exciting and unique medium. FWIW, I find the Apu trilogy immersive even if it is in black and white (?). It may be lacking some vibrant colors, but that doesn't mean it lacks vibrancy. A little perplexed by this comparison.
    I don't think I'm being overly prescriptive in suggesting that movies should be movies since, after all, they very well can't be anything else. Hence, to claim that a given movie is "immersive" is absurd: if people were so immersed in The Lord of the Rings films that they mistook the images on the screen for reality, they would run for their lives during the battle scenes instead of remaining in the theatre. In other words, the spectator is always conscious of looking at a movie (unless they're very stupid, insane, or on drugs), and at the risk of sounding prescriptive, that's as it should be. As I've said elsewhere on this forum, cinema is always heightened in relation to natural perception or else one wouldn't perceive it as aesthetic in the first place. Praising a film as "immersive" (or criticizing it for being insufficiently so) misrepresents the experience of watching a movie by denying aesthetic perception.
    Last edited by baby doll; 06-04-2021 at 05:09 AM.
    Just because...
    Julieta (Pedro Almodóvar, 2016) mild
    Flame and Woman (Yoshida Kiju, 1967) mild
    Sunset (László Nemes, 2018) warm

    The last book I read was...
    2666 by Roberto Bolańo


    The (New) World

  18. #71118
    Quote Quoting baby doll (view post)
    I don't think I'm being overly prescriptive in suggesting that movies should be movies since, after all, they very well can't be anything else. Hence, to claim that a given movie is "immersive" is absurd: if people were so immersed in The Lord of the Rings films that they mistook the images on the screen for reality, they would run for their lives during the battle scenes instead of remaining in the theatre. In other words, the spectator is always conscious of looking at a movie (unless they're very stupid, insane, or on drugs), and at the risk of sounding prescriptive, that's as it should be. As I've said elsewhere on this forum, cinema is always heightened in relation to natural perception or else one wouldn't perceive it as aesthetic in the first place. Praising a film as "immersive" (or criticizing it for being insufficiently so) misrepresents the experience of watching a movie by denying aesthetic perception.
    This kind of reductive view of the form and the audience is rampant in academia. You speak of being "conscious" of what they're looking at when no one even knows what consciousness is (although, I will say that one of the most prominent models of consciousness would disagree with your characterization: https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view...0198735410-e-1). Moreover, you treat the audience with disdain, call them crazy if they become invested in the world of a film. How about you try enjoying a film and becoming immersed in it? I assure you it's possible.
    Last edited by quido8_5; 06-04-2021 at 12:16 PM.
    Stuff I've Watched out of *****

    The Last Duel - ***
    Only Murders in the Building: **
    Squid Games: **.5

  19. #71119
    A Platypus Grouchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    9,629
    I love Drive as well, it's a masterpiece. I only meant to point out that it's an aesthetic punch and not so much an immersive one - although the chase sequences are tight.

  20. #71120
    Quote Quoting Philip J. Fry (view post)
    Dat elevator scene.
    I went to the bathroom during this scene. :-(
    Stuff I've Watched out of *****

    The Last Duel - ***
    Only Murders in the Building: **
    Squid Games: **.5

  21. #71121
    Quote Quoting quido8_5 (view post)
    This kind of reductive view of the form and the audience is rampant in academia. You speak of being "conscious" of what they're looking at when no one even knows what consciousness is (although, I will say that one of the most prominent models of consciousness would disagree with your characterization: https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view...0198735410-e-1). Moreover, you treat the audience with disdain, call them crazy if they become invested in the world of a film. How about you try enjoying a film and becoming immersed in it? I assure you it's possible.
    That an idea is pervasive in academia is not necessarily evidence the idea is false. As it happens, in this case, something close to the opposite idea--namely, that the film spectator is mentally passive and mistakes filmic representation for reality--was the dominant hypothesis in film studies during the heyday of apparatus theory in the 1970s and still resurfaces from time to time as a justification for self-reflexive modernism in the cinema (see, for instance, Kate Mondloch's book Screens: Viewing Media Installation Art). Surely it is more reductive, and more disdainful of the audience, to assume that they mistake films for reality than it is to assume that they are mentally active and critical. Moreover, the former hypothesis is demonstrably false: one doesn't need a fully developed theory of consciousness to observe that audiences do not behave as if they believed that the images they see on the screen are real. Even people who shout at characters in horror movies to get out of the house don't expect the characters to listen to them. Nor is there any reason to assume that "immersion," defined as mistaking filmic representation for reality, is a necessary precondition to enjoying a film. I still enjoy watching Goodfellas even though Scorsese's repeated use of freeze frames and disembodied voice-overs (which don't exist in real life) should disabuse me of any illusion that I'm looking at anything but a movie.
    Just because...
    Julieta (Pedro Almodóvar, 2016) mild
    Flame and Woman (Yoshida Kiju, 1967) mild
    Sunset (László Nemes, 2018) warm

    The last book I read was...
    2666 by Roberto Bolańo


    The (New) World

  22. #71122
    Quote Quoting quido8_5 (view post)
    I went to the bathroom during this scene. :-(
    Curse them sphincters!
    Last Seen:​
    Infinity Train, Book 2: Cracked Reflection (O. Dennis, 2020)
    Wolfwalkers (T. Moore/R. Stewart, 2020)
    Us (J. Peele, 2019) ☆
    Archer, S12 (A. Reed, 2021) ☆
    Infinity Train, Book 1: The Perennial Child (O. Dennis, 2019)
    Brooklyn Nine-Nine, S8 (D. Goor/M. Schur, 2021) ☆
    Spielberg (S. Lacy, 2017) ☆
    Central Park, S2a (J. Gad/L. Bouchard/N. Smith, 2021) ☆
    Batman: The Long Halloween, Part 2 (C. Palmer, 2021) ☆
    Central Park, S1 (J. Gad/L. Bouchard/N. Smith, 2020) ☆

    First time ☆

  23. #71123
    A Platypus Grouchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    9,629
    Goodfellas is actually a perfect example of the rare film that manages to be completely "immersive" (I take that as being that elusive quality that makes you react to characters as if they were real people and not think about the fact that you're watching a film) and keep a strong style at the same time. I think this is because it completely owns the first person narrative - we're watching a confession unfold.

  24. #71124
    Quote Quoting baby doll (view post)
    That an idea is pervasive in academia is not necessarily evidence the idea is false.
    That is not what I was saying. Rather, I was saying that academics are committed to the idea that their idea is not false and that they understand a more objective truth about cinema; however, art is inherently subjective, hence my point about consciousness.

    As it happens, in this case, something close to the opposite idea--namely, that the film spectator is mentally passive and mistakes filmic representation for reality--was the dominant hypothesis in film studies during the heyday of apparatus theory in the 1970s and still resurfaces from time to time as a justification for self-reflexive modernism in the cinema (see, for instance, Kate Mondloch's book Screens: Viewing Media Installation Art).
    Thanks professor!

    Surely it is more reductive, and more disdainful of the audience, to assume that they mistake films for reality than it is to assume that they are mentally active and critical. Moreover, the former hypothesis is demonstrably false: one doesn't need a fully developed theory of consciousness to observe that audiences do not behave as if they believed that the images they see on the screen are real.
    Once again, not what I said. Of course viewers are active and critical. I’m not sure if you looked at the link I posted, but the theory of consciousness is that it is an enacted experience that requires a reciprocal, dynamic relationship between what is being perceived and the percipient. It is dynamic and gives more credit to the viewer, and the medium, to recognize this. An explanation of the viewing experience as merely screen and viewer is overly simplistic and, without a more nuanced discussion of what’s going on, it can quickly lead to ideas like film can’t be immersive.
    What I was referring to as disdainful is that you describe anyone who may become so involved with a film that they do, in fact, forget they’re watching a screen as “stupid, insane, or on drugs.” I find the first two terms highly offensive, but regardless: people often have panic attacks while watching films, there’s the famous example of someone having a seizure at Pulp Fiction’s premiere. Nothing insane or stupid about that, just someone being so immersed that their perception had a physical effect on their body.

    Even people who shout at characters in horror movies to get out of the house don't expect the characters to listen to them. Nor is there any reason to assume that "immersion," defined as mistaking filmic representation for reality, is a necessary precondition to enjoying a film. I still enjoy watching Goodfellas even though Scorsese's repeated use of freeze frames and disembodied voice-overs (which don't exist in real life) should disabuse me of any illusion that I'm looking at anything but a movie.
    I think a large part of this argument, aside from being epistemologically divergent, is the definition of immersion. Immerse comes from the Latin “to plunge into, sink, submerge.” For you, the freeze frames and disembodied voice-overs disabuse you of any “illusion” that you’re not doing anything other than watching a gangster movie, a stylized telling of Henry Hill’s life. For me, those same techniques offer an enhanced view into the subjective reality of the character, the place, and the time.
    Last edited by quido8_5; 06-05-2021 at 12:43 AM.
    Stuff I've Watched out of *****

    The Last Duel - ***
    Only Murders in the Building: **
    Squid Games: **.5

  25. #71125
    Quote Quoting quido8_5 (view post)
    That is not what I was saying. Rather, I was saying that academics are committed to the idea that their idea is not false and that they understand a more objective truth about cinema; however, art is inherently subjective, hence my point about consciousness.
    Not everything is subjective. If someone claims either that audiences mistake filmic representation for real life, or that they remain cognizant of the fact of looking at a movie, they're making a factual claim about the mental activity of spectators rather than just expressing an opinion.

    Once again, not what I said. Of course viewers are active and critical. I’m not sure if you looked at the link I posted, but the theory of consciousness is that it is an enacted experience that requires a reciprocal, dynamic relationship between what is being perceived and the percipient. It is dynamic and gives more credit to the viewer, and the medium, to recognize this. An explanation of the viewing experience as merely screen and viewer is overly simplistic and, without a more nuanced discussion of what’s going on, it can quickly lead to ideas like film can’t be immersive.
    What I was referring to as disdainful is that you describe anyone who may become so involved with a film that they do, in fact, forget they’re watching a screen as “stupid, insane, or on drugs.” I find the first two terms highly offensive, but regardless: people often have panic attacks while watching films, there’s the famous example of someone having a seizure at Pulp Fiction’s premiere. Nothing insane or stupid about that, just someone being so immersed that their perception had a physical effect on their body.
    I hadn't heard of anyone having a seizure while watching Pulp Fiction, but I'm not sure what that proves. Having a rare medical condition that causes one to have an adverse reaction to certain kinds of visual stimuli is rather different than confusing a filmic representation for the thing being represented. The former is a physiological, bottom-up reaction to unprocessed visual stimuli, whereas the latter, if it ever happens, involves top-down mental processing. (For one thing, in order to forget that one is watching a film, your brain would need to override all the visual cues indicating that the screen is a flat surface, such as the fact that you can't see around a character in a film by changing your viewing position.)

    As for people having panic attacks and other extreme emotional responses to films, the fact that films sometimes have a physical effect on the spectator's body does not prove that the person experiencing the film confuses what is represented in the film for the thing itself. As I said earlier, Ramsay's film provoked in me a feeling of unease and dread (as much through its style as through its narrative), yet even while responding affectively to the film, I never forgot that I was in a theatre watching a film.

    I think a large part of this argument, aside from being epistemologically divergent, is the definition of immersion. Immerse comes from the Latin “to plunge into, sink, submerge.” For you, the freeze frames and disembodied voice-overs disabuse you of any “illusion” that you’re not doing anything other than watching a gangster movie, a stylized telling of Henry Hill’s life. For me, those same techniques offer an enhanced view into the subjective reality of the character, the place, and the time.
    Although some of Scorsese's camera techniques are obviously motivated expressionistically as an approximation of the characters' subjective states of mind, ultimately those techniques are only ever approximations. When Scorsese and Michael Ballhaus simultaneously zoom in on and dolly away from Ray Liotta and Lorraine Bracco in order to express the characters' sense of entrapment by having the walls appear to literally close in on them, not only does the spectator not feel entrapped themselves but they are aware that the apparent movement of the back wall is an effect of the camera. In other words, filtering an event through a character's subjective viewpoint doesn't make a film more "immersive," if immersiveness means causing the spectator to forget that they're watching a movie.
    Last edited by baby doll; 06-05-2021 at 06:21 AM.
    Just because...
    Julieta (Pedro Almodóvar, 2016) mild
    Flame and Woman (Yoshida Kiju, 1967) mild
    Sunset (László Nemes, 2018) warm

    The last book I read was...
    2666 by Roberto Bolańo


    The (New) World

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
An forum