Re: Seen any good films lately? [3]

by Forest Shepherd Mon Nov 10, 2014 7:56 pm

Well I have seen that (we talked about this in movies a while back). -Simultaneous posts, I mean I've seen the lawnmower road movie.
That he can tell a straight story using regular movie methods does not obviate the fact that he also chooses to take those regular methods and chop them up in a stir-fry of madness every once in a while and is, therefore, a weird director.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:01 pm

I dont think it is a strir fry of madness. I thin kits a deliberate instinctive film making that concerns itself more with mood and emotional reaction than it does linear progression.

A film like The Straight Story, The Elephant Man, or even Dune, demonstrates that Lynch can make conventional narratives when he is moved enough by the material.
In interviews its clear for Lynch ideas rain supreme, ideas and love for the ideas. If he doesnt feel those he doesnt make the film.
But that choice is not confined to something being 'weird' it comes down to how he feels about the ideas.

by Forest Shepherd Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:24 pm

Well let's be honest here. Mulholland Drive concerns itself almost entirely with mood and emotional reaction. Importantly, this is not done "at the expense" of plot and story, but in disregard of plot and story. So if someone were to walk in on a particular scene, it would play (as you pointed out) like the average film, because the sections of the movie contain characters and dialogue like a normal film.
However, anyone watching the movie for a longer period, or from the beginning, experiences a film that is divorced from plot or story; not in the way that film can be used to represent visual ideas onscreen independent of dialogue (psychoanalysis-like images of a cow in a field followed by crying babies and then a war-torn countryside) but in the way that splicing together a dozen scenes from several movies and playing them back to the audience will obviously hold little story-meaning for the viewer.

I suppose that Mulholland Drive does contain plenty of the psychologically-disturbing types of photography: the strange spiral into the velvet box (something like that) in the theatre, and the opening sequence (or was that normal? I forget). But parts of it pretend to continuity. That kind of annoys me. At least with really old surrealist films like Un Chien Andalou, of which I only know because we talked about it some in my film class, there really isn't any discernable plot and the things people do in the movie are bizarre and meaningless.
The main reasons I don't like Mulholland Drive are that:
1. It's a bloody surrealist film, and
2. It has just enough apparent plot in it to lull viewers into thinking that what they're watching has something like a story to it.

Oh yeah I found this on Youtube. Feel free to compare, as I haven't finished rewatching it by the time I've posted this.

Un Chien Andalou:

(ah, note the locked box. Isn't there a similar object in Mullholland Drive?)

Edit: That wasn't that bad! (I also have a bit of a crush on the girl in the street) I don't know if that was the original score they used for the film (or if they originally wanted it to have a score) but it helps give it some emotional resonance. The male actor has some great facial expressions.
You also see some of the same types of surreal transitions that are generally only possible in film. Consider, for example, how the man in the room who is shot grimaces and falls down... and lands in the middle of a meadow. Or when the woman opens the bedroom door and finds herself on the seaside. The former is basically shot-for-shot what Jackson uses in RotK when Frodo collapses, and the latter is similar to the end of Dark City.

by halfwise Tue Nov 11, 2014 2:23 am

Forest Shepherd wrote:
I agree about Amistad, and Spielberg in general. War Horse was the pinnacle of horrible, emotional Spielbergian manipulations for me.

Ah, good. It's not just me then.

by azriel Sat Nov 15, 2014 9:34 am

I watched "Guardians of the Galaxy" yesterday & I loved it cheers

Crazy, mad, hokum fun, not to mention the obligatory "as if" scenes, & I found a new hero... Rocket ( the raccoon ) Very Happy

It had more or less all the ingredients for a good old sci-fi romp Very Happy

by Forest Shepherd Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:41 pm

Glad to hear it Azriel. If the forum had its own rating system that film would have stellar reviews all the way across.

Unfortunately, I saw Intersteller last night, and I can't give it any such ratings. It was interesting and complicated, but there were too many holes in the momentum of the film, and too many weird things happening, and the music was botched too badly in the second half in the build-up action sequences for me to like it very much. I definitely felt it had great potential after the first half, but the second half was simply not rewarding enough to make up for the unpleasantries.
And there were so many cool things in the first half!
Using (I assume) actual interviews of Dust Bowl survivors and projecting their timeline into the future, giving us a relatively original view of what the future could be like, the emotional build-up of Cooper's departure from his family, and the shots of space-travel (and the first planet) were really good.

Spoiler:

But the whole scene at the end where he meets his own

Spoiler:

by Eldorion Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:39 pm

Guardians of the Galaxy was a lot of fun, yeah. I'll definitely be there for the sequel.

Going to see Interstellar tonight with a friend. Fingers crossed. bounce

by Eldorion Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:40 pm

Simul with Forest, there. I've deliberately avoided reviews and impressions of the film so far, but Nolan's had a bit of a mixed track record with me, though I don't regret seeing any of his films so far of the ones that I've seen. But they don't always hold up to the scrutiny that Nolan himself tends to invite.

by Mrs Figg Sat Nov 15, 2014 8:56 pm

going to watch it Tomorrow bounce

by bungobaggins Sat Nov 15, 2014 9:04 pm

Guardians of the Galaxy! cheers

The best film I've seen this year, so far.

I was going to see Interstellar again (this time in IMAX), but I did some research and it turns out that the "IMAX" screens at AMC theaters are NOT the traditional IMAX screens. They are smaller, but only about 20 percent bigger than a traditional cinema screen. Not worth the extra five dollars IMO. The nearest true IMAX screen for me is at the Minnesota Zoo, which isn't exactly close, and I don't have a lot of time at the moment, so if I do see it again it will probably just be at my local theater.

by Eldorion Sat Nov 15, 2014 9:17 pm

Yeah, the dilution of the IMAX brand has been kind of disappointing. It's become pretty ubiquitous over the last 4-5 years. Still, it's definitely a step up over normal screens, and IMO is worth a little extra cash. Certainly moreso than 3D. I mean, standard 2K projectors aren't much different than Blu-ray quality. I can't say whether fake IMAX or digital 4K is better since I've only seen a couple of films in either format, but both are quite impressive. Though obviously the mastering and the source image can make or ruin any individual film regardless of the standard its projected in.

True IMAX is still the best.

by Pettytyrant101 Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:25 pm

Nagual saw Interstellar and gave me his thoughts on it, almost every last one of them crabbit.

by Mrs Figg Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:51 pm

I wont bother going then. The Nagual has spoken.

((((or is it one of those films Petty and Nagual get crabbit about, but really are quite enjoyable scratch

))))

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Nov 16, 2014 1:01 am

The Nagual has spoken.- Figg

You have no idea how apt that is Mrs Figg Very Happy

by Eldorion Sun Nov 16, 2014 4:08 am

What are Nagual's thoughts on the film, Petty?

I think I liked it. But it's gonna require some time and effort to process it before really being able to express an opinion. Some adjectives that come to mind though:

Emotional
Overwhelming
Loud
Well-acted (mostly)
Intriguing
Visually stunning
Interesting worldbuilding
Philosophically interesting but not quite as much as it thinks it is

by Eldorion Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:09 am

Okay, what was up with the sound-mixing in this film? I couldn't make out a lot of dialogue at certain points, sometimes due to sound-effects, sometimes just the soundtrack (like in the first take of adult!Murph talking to her father). Was this deliberate, so they could reveal more information later? Or is making his movies partially inaudible Nolan's new trademark now? *cough*bane*cough*

A couple of things regarding the Matt Damon subplot:

Spoiler:

Also, it kind of bothered me how the movie seemed to have a very clear political agenda of sorts: we've fucked up the planet, which could cause an ecological catastrophe, so we need to double-down on scientific research and look to expansion to the starts to save us. Not exactly an uncommon sentiment, and given the periodic political questions surrounding NASA's budget, the whole deal with them operating in secret and the government line being that the Moon landing was faked seems like a pretty clear commentary on a real world issue. But as the movie itself points out (via Cooper, when he first meets Dr Brand), the idea of expanding to the stars is only possible because of a wormhole that was placed in the galaxy by some sort of transdimensional civilization. So until we have evidence of wormholes being gifted to us, the movie's social criticism elements feel really cheap and dishonest.

None of this is intended to diminish the artistic success or the emotional impact of the movie. It was great, and it's the rare film that leaves me thinking quite this much. It was beautifully filmed, and the space travel sequences in particular stand-out as some of the finest moments I've ever seen in science fiction. McConaughey and Hathaway both give really good performances, though most of the other actors aren't really given much to work with, and My Cocaine seems to be playing the same character in all of the Nolan movies he's appeared in.

Still trying to figure out exactly what they were going for with the ending.

by Eldorion Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:20 am

Oh yeah, the robots antics were the second-best part of the movie, after the space travel stuff. TARS was great; comic relief character of the year, especially since he could transition flawlessly to drama when necessary.

by bungobaggins Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:59 am

Eldorion wrote:Oh yeah, the robots antics were the second-best part of the movie, after the space travel stuff. TARS was great; comic relief character of the year, especially since he could transition flawlessly to drama when necessary.

I loved the robots. Nod

An interesting blend of Hal and the Monolith.

I had a hard time hearing some things too, couldn't understand what Michael Kane was saying during his last scene when he is in the hospital.

I agree on the performances. McConaughey is great in pretty much everything he does, and I always like Anne Hathaway (although I prefer it when she has longer hair. Nod

).

by Mrs Figg Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:45 pm

well I saw it and I really enjoyed it. You could set it on the May Flower ship and the emotional messages would have been the same. leaving one damaged world behind and voyaging into the unknown. My overwhelming sensation was one of emotional drama, the sci-fi stuff was just the window dressing, well done but not the heart of the story. Its not as artistic or mind blowing as Gravity, its a good solid film with lots of things to think about afterwards. I liked the way they tried to show the impossible, ie falling into a black Hole or 5 dimensional worlds. MaConaghey gave a great performance and I enjoyed the satifying end, guy goes off to save girl with cute robot friend. I love you

by Forest Shepherd Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:13 pm

I just had trouble getting over the ending. The Nolan-slip-ups (the plot-holes that he seems to invite criticism of in his movies, as Eldo said) didn't bother me too much, it was the

Spoiler:

by Mrs Figg Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:56 pm

I missed a lot of the timey wimey stuff because my bum hurt, but are the transdimensional folk, us?

by azriel Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:26 pm

I watched the old 1950s "War of the World" film yesterday. Most of the acting was a bit bland but, the lead actress did a great job of being scared shitless ! pale

It was still a good film in the way of ideas & it was so atmospheric ! Had me on the edge of my seat a couple of times !

Seen any good films lately? [3] - Page 8 Waroftheworldscared_zps44911728

Seen any good films lately? [3] - Page 8 Waroftheworldscared_zps44911728

Seen any good films lately? [3] - Page 8 War-of-the-worlds-1953-01-PROMO_zpsa240eafd

by Eldorion Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:12 am

Mrs Figg wrote:I missed a lot of the timey wimey stuff because my bum hurt, but are the transdimensional folk, us?

Spoiler:

by Eldorion Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:21 am

Also, regarding the sound mixing issue, Christopher Nolan has come out and said that it was a deliberate decision to make the dialogue next-to-impossible to understand. He lays out his thoughts on the matter for The Hollywood Reporter here:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/christopher-nolan-breaks-silence-interstellar-749465

And some theatres have already begun taking pre-emptive measures to respond to audience complaints. Razz

Seen any good films lately? [3] - Page 8 VMr3EkF

I'm not sure how I feel about the dialogue thing. I wondered in an earlier post if it was deliberate, since there were several points where unclear dialogue was revisited in a later scene and through context became more clear. I guess I can respect that as a stylistic decision, though it's a little annoying from an audience perspective, especially if you're not sure if it's just a malfunctioning sound system or a bad print or what. There were some parts of the film where I thought the sound effects were really, really effective. The rocket launch and the wormhole sequence were both extremely loud and chaotic in their sound design, but this went really well with what was happening visually and helped in the immersion. But there were numerous other scenes -- including static ones of people just sitting and talking -- where they'd crank up the soundtrack or add a throbbing bass for no discernible reason and it just became uncomfortable and distracting. Like, it didn't make me feel that I was sharing the emotional experience of the characters, it made me wonder whether the sound engineer had suffered a stroke while working on the movie. The fact that the IMAX speakers were strong enough that the bass caused all the seats in the theatre to vibrate didn't help either. That's the sort of thing that's cool during a rocket launch scene, but annoying during pure dialogue.

by Forest Shepherd Mon Nov 17, 2014 6:40 am

I loved the build-up to the launch sequence. The mixing in of the voice doing the countdown over the emotional climax of Cooper's departure was like something you'd find in a really cool and slightly strange musician's experimental work involving multiple layers of sound. Well, Ok to be honest I was thinking of this when I said that:

Julian Casablancas + The Voidz:

But anyway, the places where the music really did not work so well for me were the percussion-driven link-up scene (where their spaceship was spinning out of control), and, possibly, one other scene from that section of the film. It was perfectly fine to blast the bass in Inception near the end of the film because the tension had been building for so long, but when Nolan did the same thing here it did not pay off very well.