Tasty Biscuits
with fancy sauce
Hahaha. The unintended consequence of all my posts.
Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Part#: Some High Number
- Thread starter ProstheticConscience
- Start date
Hahaha. The unintended consequence of all my posts.
Arizonan God
Registered User
While Chazelle is on topic here, I’ll say I’m very conflicted on First Man. There are moments of some seriously incredible filmmaking here, but a lot of the film felt an arms lengths away. I understand Neil Armstrong was a very stoic person in real life, but even knowing that it felt hard to engage.
A lot of the emotional beats, save one major one, didn’t really resonate with me. It was kind of like going through the motions at one point. Neil goes through emotionally difficult expeirence, holds it in, then on to the next mission.
Acting wise, I thought Gosling did well with what he was given, but the real standout for me was Claire Foy. She was spectacular. Corey Stoll was great at being an asshole (which I’ve heard is what Buzz Aldrin was really like).
On a technical level, some of the choices didn’t resonate with me. I understand why the director/cinematographer would think that 16mm film with a lot of handheld work would fit the sort of “past home movies feel”, but it just doesn’t work on a practical level for me. This may have been exasperated by the fact that I was watching it in an IMAX theatre, in which the softness and shakiness of the image is even more noticeable. This is fine during the intense take off landing scenes, but a bunch of astronauts learning physics doesn’t need to feel like I’m on a roller coaster.
That being said, something the film does brilliantly was the switch to IMAX cameras at the end. The leap from the grainy, old school look to the crisp, clean and stunning IMAX imagery as the lunar shuttle doors open is breathtaking, and works on a symbolic level as well. One big leap for mankind, one big leap in filmmaking.
Oh, and the score was pretty great.
As for my score, I’m not sure yet. Probably somewhere around a 6.
A lot of the emotional beats, save one major one, didn’t really resonate with me. It was kind of like going through the motions at one point. Neil goes through emotionally difficult expeirence, holds it in, then on to the next mission.
Acting wise, I thought Gosling did well with what he was given, but the real standout for me was Claire Foy. She was spectacular. Corey Stoll was great at being an asshole (which I’ve heard is what Buzz Aldrin was really like).
On a technical level, some of the choices didn’t resonate with me. I understand why the director/cinematographer would think that 16mm film with a lot of handheld work would fit the sort of “past home movies feel”, but it just doesn’t work on a practical level for me. This may have been exasperated by the fact that I was watching it in an IMAX theatre, in which the softness and shakiness of the image is even more noticeable. This is fine during the intense take off landing scenes, but a bunch of astronauts learning physics doesn’t need to feel like I’m on a roller coaster.
That being said, something the film does brilliantly was the switch to IMAX cameras at the end. The leap from the grainy, old school look to the crisp, clean and stunning IMAX imagery as the lunar shuttle doors open is breathtaking, and works on a symbolic level as well. One big leap for mankind, one big leap in filmmaking.
Oh, and the score was pretty great.
As for my score, I’m not sure yet. Probably somewhere around a 6.
Shareefruck
Registered User
Obviously I get that it's not a glamorous celebration of Fletcher's approach to music that suggests a happy ending, but as you mentioned, the movie wanted to push the merits of it as well, and that climactic performance at the end was clearly indicative of that. There seemed to be an equal push and pull to the idea of it that came across as "It's awful and inhumane, but it works, but is it worth it? Probably not."
I took the general thrust of the scene as "Well, it worked... he's proven himself as being good at jazz now, just like Fletcher wanted, but at what irreparable cost/damage?" which to me, still seems antithetical to how becoming exceptional at jazz actually seems to work. The Charlie Parker analogy suggests that that's how Charlie Parker got good as well, and that abuse/mistreatment fueled him towards that end, but it isn't-- A cymbal was thrown at his feet-- not thrown at his head-- and he didn't lock himself in a room and train to get good until his fingers bled like Andrew did, the real story was a journey of inspiration, influence, and musical education/discovery, a pretty crucial piece of the puzzle. While the themes don't ultimately need to focus on that, I still found what was there to be an overly reductive and simplistic representation of jazz that didn't ring true, basically equating the process to shooting hundreds or thousands of pucks against the wall every day to become a good goalscorer or something.
I'm not sure the movie effectively communicates what it intends to, either. Going strictly off of what's presented, it would probably be reasonable to come out of it thinking "Boy, I guess that's the Catch-22 of becoming an exceptional musician, huh? You just have to pick your poison and decide if it's worth the sacrifice", and I wouldn't be surprised if many did.Nothing in the movie even really hinted that there's any other way, at least from what I remember.
I don't see how jazz being the medium rather than the point of the movie makes
"getting jazz all wrong" any less worthy of distaste or criticism, personally.
Last edited:
Savi
Registered User
Went to the new Gaspar Noe movie premiere last night, let's just say you won't be disappointed if you're a fan of the man 
I definitely wasn't. Also nice surprise to see him attend for some Q&A afterwards, have to say though he's a bit weird and his sense of humor is pretty dark but it was nice to hear him take us on a walkthrough on this movie. Fun night.
I definitely wasn't. Also nice surprise to see him attend for some Q&A afterwards, have to say though he's a bit weird and his sense of humor is pretty dark but it was nice to hear him take us on a walkthrough on this movie. Fun night.
Tasty Biscuits
with fancy sauce
Distaste, sure, criticism, not so much (for me). If the goal is to create a realistic portrayal of jazz, and musicianship in general, then sure, criticize away re: that aspect. If it's not, then dissatisfaction falls more on individual preferences (which, to be clear, I have absolutely no issues with), than it does an evaluation of a movie at large.
That's just a philosophy in general, but as it applies to Whiplash, the film presented a highly, intentionally sensationalized snapshot in a musician's life in order to tell the story it wanted. Again, I have no issues with saying "I don't like how this movie portrayed jazz/musicianship, therefore I don't like the movie in general." But something like "This is not a good movie because of how it treats jazz and music," that I can't really get on board with. This is moving away a bit from what you said, but I still wanted to address it.
Funnily enough, most of the things I don't like about that movie (of which there aren't too many) are all those specific moments (incorrectly practicing 'til his fingers bleed is an eye-roller, forgetting his drumsticks in the rental center on the way to the concert, which would NEVER happen). But since it's not about jazz, I'm not going to point to these instances and say "This is the movie failing."
It's the burden of knowledge (I'm sure there's a more succinct term for this). Chazelle used jazz because that's what he's familiar with (and it's what inspired the story), so he could more easily identify which aspects to heighten. I often wonder if I'd have liked it more or less if it was a story about, say, an athlete. Hard to say, but few things really get me going like a good jazz drum solo.
Possibly, but I'd rather have that than a movie which spoon-feeds a message/point. One would hope a general audience member is aware that with all the greats in a multitude of areas, many different paths were taken to achieve that level (and I can't imagine anybody who saw the movie hadn't heard of any other jazz musicians ever, so it's reasonable to expect some basic level of deduction amongst the audience regarding other jazz greats and what paths they took). Some were assholes. Some had to work their asses off. Some did, and were also great people. This was just one of those "options," and the continual interpretation of the ending being a validation of that approach, that he's "made it" or whatever, is baffling to me. He's back in with Fletcher again when he had an out. It's sad. But still exciting to watch/listen to.
Last edited:
Shareefruck
Registered User
I can't say that I subscribe to the need to separate distaste from criticism, but to each their own. Personally, any time I say that I think something is good or bad, whether or not I find it tasteful or distasteful/effective or ineffective is almost entirely what I'm referring to, and criticism is just a way to make sense of that with reasoning. But that's opening a can of worms that we don't have to get into.
I found it engaging and I found the climax entertaining, but I can't bring myself to consider it a good movie as a result of many of those elements that bothered me.
Last edited:
Holy smokes! Kudos on your stamina though.
Did you find that you got more critical of a movie after about 3? Everyone is different. Personally, I don't trust my judgment on later viewings after awhile, there's a tiredness factor that kicks in (for me anyway).
I'd also be interested in your take about Burning. (if you are going to be selective of which films you write a review).
Last edited:
Led Zappa
Tomorrow Today
I read in late 70's - early 80's that when Steve Gaad was learning drums that he spent all his time that he wasn't working or doing things like eating, shitting and sleeping doing nothing except keeping time to a metronome for an entire year to drive the beat into himself. By the time of this article he was getting 50k per 1/2 hour session. And if asked to do it again the next 1/2hr was double. He dedicated his life to learning the drums and I'm sure much of that would seem extreme to you or I. Some people don't have the discipline to do this, but want to get that discipline ingrained into them in other ways due to their drive to achieve their goal.
Was it over the top in the movie? For most I guess. I don't think it was all about abuse.
A short list of people Gaad ended up working with.
A short list of musicians with whom Gadd has worked includes Frank Sinatra, Paul McCartney, Paul Simon, Steely Dan, Al Jarreau, Joe Cocker, Stuff, Bob James, Chick Corea, Eric Clapton, Pino Daniele, James Taylor, Jim Croce, Eddie Gómez, The Manhattan Transfer, Michal Urbaniak, Steps Ahead, Tony Banks, Manhattan Jazz Quintet, Carly Simon, Richard Tee, Jon Bon Jovi, Chet Baker, Paul Desmond, The Bee Gees, Michael McDonald, Michel Petrucciani, Kate Bush, David Sanborn,
Was it over the top in the movie? For most I guess. I don't think it was all about abuse.
A short list of people Gaad ended up working with.
A short list of musicians with whom Gadd has worked includes Frank Sinatra, Paul McCartney, Paul Simon, Steely Dan, Al Jarreau, Joe Cocker, Stuff, Bob James, Chick Corea, Eric Clapton, Pino Daniele, James Taylor, Jim Croce, Eddie Gómez, The Manhattan Transfer, Michal Urbaniak, Steps Ahead, Tony Banks, Manhattan Jazz Quintet, Carly Simon, Richard Tee, Jon Bon Jovi, Chet Baker, Paul Desmond, The Bee Gees, Michael McDonald, Michel Petrucciani, Kate Bush, David Sanborn,
I completely disagree, and I really do not understand your explanation at all. He clearly wants it to be something else. What is there to interpret or decipher?
However, I will agree to disagree, because I am even more confused now than before.
Personally, I try to approach every film the same way, irregardless of the time, and I attempt to give every film a fair shake. I do agree that stamina becomes an issue around the middle of the festival, especially when it comes to slow or abstract cinema. That is why I gave 2 ratings to Godard's The Image Book, because I nodded off more than once during the showing, due to a lack of plot, and the slow pace. I did not like it, but I also recognize that there are merits to the film.
The best example of my approach is probably what happened during Son of Saul a couple of years ago. It was near the end of the festival, I just ran to this one from another theatre, and the extra close camerawork took too much concentration to focus. Thus, about 10 minutes in, I fell asleep, and I did not wake up until about half way through. In the end, even though I thought it was only decent, I did mention that my experience is incomplete due to my circumstances, and I still recommended people to give it a shot, because it is likely better than I thought, as I liked the parts I actually woke up for, and I will give it another try later on.
Basically, I try to be honest. If I fall asleep, I will write that in my reviews, so people can take them with a grain of salt. However, I can usually tell rather I fell asleep because of fatigue, or boredom.
Last edited:
I guess I will start with Burning, due to popular demand.
Before the festival, Burning is supposed to be one of the highlights of the festival. It received critical acclaim, and it is very close for the coveted Palme d'Or. Thus, expectations are high, and I am quite excited before my screening. Perhaps I have too high of an expectation, because the letdown is quite spectacular.
The film is supposed to be a slow-burn mystery thriller. When done right, those can be very profound, and the effect lingers within the audience long afterwards. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. Quite simply, there is absolutely no thrill here. The premise takes a long time to set up and develop, but just when one expects the pace to quicken, it never does. As a result, the movie feels like it just goes with the motion, and by the time the film reaches its conclusion, the interest has long evaporated, and no impact can ever be achieved.
The big problem is with the script. To be fair, it is well-written, and I appreciate all the attention to details. However, based on the setup, the ending can be seen from a mile away, and there is just no room for any twists and turns, because it is the only logical conclusion. In layman's terms, the writers just wrote themselves into a corner. It also does not help that the characters themselves are not completely relatable, or all that likeable, because there is simply no reason to get invested in them, and subsequently, the film. It is not the actors' fault, because they all did a wonderful job, and they are a highlight of the film. Rather, it comes back to the script, because they play the characters as they are written.
Now, to be fair, there are a lot of things to like. The cinematography is beautiful, the use of colour accentuate the mood and atmosphere, and it makes good uses of sound and silence. Unfortunately, all the technical prowess in the world can not save a fatal script.
My initial score give it a 5.5/10. However, I actually want to give it another attempt later on, because based on a number of reviews and discussions I have read, I may have missed something. A lot of people raved about the richness in symbolism within the film, and they all have some sort of meaning. Personally, I do not see that many, but it is also possible that I am wrong. That is why I have mixed feelings about the movie. I do not like it, but perhaps that is simply because I missed a lot of the details.
Before the festival, Burning is supposed to be one of the highlights of the festival. It received critical acclaim, and it is very close for the coveted Palme d'Or. Thus, expectations are high, and I am quite excited before my screening. Perhaps I have too high of an expectation, because the letdown is quite spectacular.
The film is supposed to be a slow-burn mystery thriller. When done right, those can be very profound, and the effect lingers within the audience long afterwards. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. Quite simply, there is absolutely no thrill here. The premise takes a long time to set up and develop, but just when one expects the pace to quicken, it never does. As a result, the movie feels like it just goes with the motion, and by the time the film reaches its conclusion, the interest has long evaporated, and no impact can ever be achieved.
The big problem is with the script. To be fair, it is well-written, and I appreciate all the attention to details. However, based on the setup, the ending can be seen from a mile away, and there is just no room for any twists and turns, because it is the only logical conclusion. In layman's terms, the writers just wrote themselves into a corner. It also does not help that the characters themselves are not completely relatable, or all that likeable, because there is simply no reason to get invested in them, and subsequently, the film. It is not the actors' fault, because they all did a wonderful job, and they are a highlight of the film. Rather, it comes back to the script, because they play the characters as they are written.
Now, to be fair, there are a lot of things to like. The cinematography is beautiful, the use of colour accentuate the mood and atmosphere, and it makes good uses of sound and silence. Unfortunately, all the technical prowess in the world can not save a fatal script.
My initial score give it a 5.5/10. However, I actually want to give it another attempt later on, because based on a number of reviews and discussions I have read, I may have missed something. A lot of people raved about the richness in symbolism within the film, and they all have some sort of meaning. Personally, I do not see that many, but it is also possible that I am wrong. That is why I have mixed feelings about the movie. I do not like it, but perhaps that is simply because I missed a lot of the details.
Tasty Biscuits
with fancy sauce
Yeah, I usually have a pretty good sense re: film/music, when I personally don't like something but can objectively say "This is well-made, but just not for me," and when I can say, "This is just straight up bad." Of course, the catch-22 with the latter example is there are likely people out there whose opinion of that same thing is, "This is objectively great," and hell, why should my evaluation matter any more/less than theirs? But like you said, probably a can of worms we don't want to get into, haha
Last edited:
I went the other way. I was pretty much enthralled from start to finish. Initially I took the film as a character study and was fascinated to watch it slide slowly into something much darker and far more disquieting. The tension level went up so incrementally, and one of the things I liked about it was I couldn't always put my finger on what was really going on. The movie for me was like being far out on the ocean and looking down in the water and seeing a really big shape deep beneath the surface glide by. Not quite sure what it is; not quite sure how much of a threat it might be. To me the kind of suspense (doesn't even seem like that is the right word but it will have to do) and ambiguity that director Lee establishes is masterful, especially combined with the cinematography and the acting (I especially liked Stephen Yeun's performance as the enigmatic interloper). I didn't see the ending coming, and when it did it shook me a little. I think Burning is a model of misdirection, subtlety, inscrutability, and dread, and it's still in my head.I guess I will start with Burning, due to popular demand.
Before the festival, Burning is supposed to be one of the highlights of the festival. It received critical acclaim, and it is very close for the coveted Palme d'Or. Thus, expectations are high, and I am quite excited before my screening. Perhaps I have too high of an expectation, because the letdown is quite spectacular.
The film is supposed to be a slow-burn mystery thriller. When done right, those can be very profound, and the effect lingers within the audience long afterwards. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. Quite simply, there is absolutely no thrill here. The premise takes a long time to set up and develop, but just when one expects the pace to quicken, it never does. As a result, the movie feels like it just goes with the motion, and by the time the film reaches its conclusion, the interest has long evaporated, and no impact can ever be achieved.
The big problem is with the script. To be fair, it is well-written, and I appreciate all the attention to details. However, based on the setup, the ending can be seen from a mile away, and there is just no room for any twists and turns, because it is the only logical conclusion. In layman's terms, the writers just wrote themselves into a corner. It also does not help that the characters themselves are not completely relatable, or all that likeable, because there is simply no reason to get invested in them, and subsequently, the film. It is not the actors' fault, because they all did a wonderful job, and they are a highlight of the film. Rather, it comes back to the script, because they play the characters as they are written.
Now, to be fair, there are a lot of things to like. The cinematography is beautiful, the use of colour accentuate the mood and atmosphere, and it makes good uses of sound and silence. Unfortunately, all the technical prowess in the world can not save a fatal script.
My initial score give it a 5.5/10. However, I actually want to give it another attempt later on, because based on a number of reviews and discussions I have read, I may have missed something. A lot of people raved about the richness in symbolism within the film, and they all have some sort of meaning. Personally, I do not see that many, but it is also possible that I am wrong. That is why I have mixed feelings about the movie. I do not like it, but perhaps that is simply because I missed a lot of the details.
Last edited:
Nalens Oga
Registered User
Love, Simon (2018) - unratable/10
I'm sure it's a good movie but I had to quit 10 minutes in cos I got pissed off at seeing rich American teens with cars that their parents bought them with insurance they could afford and making latte runs in the morning before school started while dancing to streaming synthpop in the car. Maybe I'll come back to it once my grumpiness subsides. I started Independence Day instead, a masterclass in bad acting in the first half hour but it works so far.
I'm sure it's a good movie but I had to quit 10 minutes in cos I got pissed off at seeing rich American teens with cars that their parents bought them with insurance they could afford and making latte runs in the morning before school started while dancing to streaming synthpop in the car. Maybe I'll come back to it once my grumpiness subsides. I started Independence Day instead, a masterclass in bad acting in the first half hour but it works so far.
Tasty Biscuits
with fancy sauce
Fair enough. I'm also often a victim of expectations. In this case, I had none going in, so that might have helped compared to you. I agree with some of your points but the movie had another dimension to it (a sort of surreal Twin Peaks flavour) and I liked it better than you did. Like kihei, the movie is still in my head. It's another of those post-truth era movies that messes with you and allows you an alternative explanation by filling in some blanks the way you might wish to perceive them. It won't make my top 10 favorites but it stirred me more than usual for a film.I guess I will start with Burning, due to popular demand.
Yeah, I can definitely see your points of view. The atmosphere in the film can be quite hypnotic, and there are probably details and dimensions that I missed. Unfortunately, I am utterly bored by the plot, and the payoff is just so obvious. I talked to a couple of people after the screening, and they all felt disappointed by the hype. For full disclosure, I saw Burning right after a 4 hours movie, and that felt faster than this one.
Regardless, thank you for the responses. Film can be very subjective, and it is always good to see another point of view.
Last edited:
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
Went to the new Gaspar Noe movie premiere last night, let's just say you won't be disappointed if you're a fan of the man
I haven't watched his two latest films but it's always bothered me how he's always remembered for Irreversible. While a great film, his I Stand Alone (who's main character is the overweight shirtless man in the opening scene of Irreversible) is a masterpiece but is never mentioned, outside of two junkies talking about it on The Wire.
Last edited:
Good point. But I've come to view Irreversible as, if not a great film nor easy to sit through, certainly an important movie. I think the film is a revealing depiction of both the savage brutality of rape but also of the full destructive force of male violence and rage. It is a harrowing experience to watch but the film certainly forces the viewer to confront some uncomfortable truths. To that extent, I think Irreversible is actually socially responsible.I haven't watched his two latest films but it's always bothered me how he's always remembered for Irreversible. While a great film, his I Stand Alone (who's main character is the overweight shirtless man in the opening scene of Irreversible) is a masterpiece but is never mentioned, outside of two junkies talking about it on The Wire.
Shareefruck
Registered User
The Guilty (2018) Directed by Gustav Muller 7A
A lot of people have low tolerance for one-actor movies, and if you are among them, stop reading now. Yes, such movies can feel gimmicky but such a gimmick has produced both failures and successes. The Guilty is one of the successes. The Guilty takes place entirely within a police station where Asgar, a Copenhagen cop, has drawn duty on the emergency call line. We see him handle a couple of calls, and it is clear he is a bit of a dick. But then he gets a call from a woman who is in the process of being abducted by her estranged husband, and suddenly he becomes very focused. Two small children have been abandoned to fend for themselves and Asgar has to figure out how to both get help to the children and how to find out where the husband and kidnapped wife are going to. It seems clear that the wife's life is riding on how quickly Asgar can fit the pieces together and that the children are highly vulnerable, too. Asgar struggles to find out more information and put together the pieces of the puzzle. All this is occurring in two separate rooms of the police station. While there are other characters milling about at other desks, the movie focuses on only Asgar and his telephone as he desperately tries to get help for the threatened parties. This is both a character study of a man who has secrets of his own while at the same time being a very tense and effective thriller. Several times I realized that I was very tense and had to tell myself to relax--I had become that involved. And how many times do you think of the title of the movie while you are watching it? Virtually never, right? But I kept going "The Guilty, The Guilty, what has guilt got to do with what I'm watching." Everything becomes clear after some carefully constructed and quite believable twists in the plot as the deeper themes of the movie slowly emerge. Jakob Cedergrem as Asgar deserves high praise for carrying this movie on his own, but he gets help from a terrific script. The Guilty is Denmark's submission to the Academy Awards in the "foreign language" category, and it is a very worthy candidate indeed.
subtitles
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
Have you seen I Stand Alone? If so, I'd be curious to know your thoughts. And if not, I'd highly recommend it although I think our taste in movies diverges quite a bit more than our taste in literary fiction.
Last edited:
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
Can you imagine doing this and then still having to end up collaborating with Bon Jovi? I'd cry.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 13Staked: $16,904.00Event closes- Updated:
-