list/discuss/rate - your recently watched movies |
Post Reply | Page <1 102103104105106 220> |
Author | |
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
^^ Loki not Thanos
|
|
What?
|
|
AtomicCrimsonRush
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 02 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 14258 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Ah - yes I ws reading a thread a while ago and had that name on my mind. Will fix
|
|
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 65513 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Scrooge 1951
This is the classic and best-known version with Alastair Sim spectacular as Dickens' character, great photography and production that radiates an eerie white light, a brilliant score, and no extraneous nonsense. * question for our Brits: do we think Scrooge simply dreams/hallucinates things, or is it an external experience? |
|
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
With any work of fiction they are as real as the reader wants them to be, Dickens believed there was a rational (psychological) explanation for all supernatural phenomena and will hint at that in his stories: in A Christmas Carol he gets Scrooge to speculate that "...an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato... " were the cause of his hallucinations; in The Signal-Man the narrator of the story believes the signalman is hallucinating possibly from an overtaxed imagination (stress).
|
|
What?
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 65513 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
yes the food he eats is of questionable quality and is in every version I've seen, but is made so obvious (even by Scrooge) that one wonders how significant it is.
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 25 2011 Location: Los Angeles, CA Status: Offline Points: 10970 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
2001: A Space Odyssey.
What an ending. This sucks. Such a good guy. Oh, hello there. This is true - this is actually Kubrick's visionary sci-fi masterwork. Great production, great cinematography, great everything except for one thing ... err ... actually, a few little things. There are certain things that confused me and led me to the thought that a person might see them as filler. The visual effects work near the end of the movie is amazing but it seems to be out of place. What do all these lines and colors signify? Also, the pace of the movie is a bit too slow. Not that I have a major beef with that, but it seems like the pace does not do anything but stretching out the length of the film. Plus, there are scenes and sequences that do not really bear any significance. For example, a female servant has to walk 180 degrees along the wall of the room to get into the cockpit? That just makes me laugh. What's the use of such a design? In fact, why am I even discussing this meaningless sequence? That's it for the video. Now let's discuss the audio, or, to be more specific, the music, because most of the sound itself was decent enough to me. The soundtrack is a wee-bit mixed. We have classical music, which sounds quite appropriate (for some inexplicable reason) with the cosmo-scapes. We also have the annoying choir work (which is weird, 'cause I listen to avant-garde for pleasure) that resonated with me a tiny bit only once. Completing the soundtrack are the electronic noises (which reminded me a bit of another sci-fi film by Robert Wise, The Andromeda Strain, for its soundtrack). Please, tell me I'm over-thinking something here. "Well, fine job, Andrey. You've given a widely recognized classic a high rating and managed to bash it up pretty good." Or did I? All of the arguments presented above are just there for you to understand why my rating for this film is a three, not a four. "But why is it not a two?" Well, the movie is too good for a two. What's the matter, ... you don't believe me? Just see it for yourself. There are certain ideas presented in the film that are quite thought-provoking. THE REMAINDER OF THIS PARAGRAPH IS A SPOILER. For example, the mysterious matter that drains the youth out of poor Mr. Bowman, carrying him over to the beginning of the loop of life, from old age to the embryo stage, takes him close to the Earth and shows him the world. One of the possible messages delivered here is that the mysterious matter is like some sort of a god. "Would you like to live in this place?" Now, some time after the beginning of the film the primates in "The Dawn of Man" chapter (or act, if you will), from which mankind have spawned, displayed curiosity in the mysterious matter. What does that tell us? That no matter how intelligent and technologically advanced we are, we are still at the mercy of the Universe? Probably. END OF SPOILER. Also, as I've said before, the movie benefits a lot from the awesome shooting quality and production. OK, that takes care of why this work does not deserve a low rating. Final rating: *** / ****
Edited by Dayvenkirq - October 06 2012 at 23:53 |
|
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
^ Remember this was 1968 - until the release of 2001 most depictions of space and space travel were woefully inaccurate scientifically, the use of artificial gravity was never explained, zero gravity rarely shown realistically and the passage of time in the vast distances of space were generally ignored. Space was also only ever shown from a two-dimensional (ie Earth like) perspective (because all space films were filmed in a 2D studio) - 2001 was the first film to show space from a three-dimensional "no direction is up" perspective with any form of realism. Prior to 2001 most space SF films could have easily been re-written to take place at on Earth .. even Star Wars is simply a naval/air-force war movie transposed into space - there is no "zero gravity" in Star Wars (or Star Trek come to that).
The 30 second flight-attendant sequence in the Lunar transfer shuttle shows a solution to a problem (Velcro shoes) and gave the 1968 audience an image they'd never seen before (or even thought about) - there is no "up" and "down" in space. Kubrick and Clarke were also normalising an extraordinary event - showing a future where space travel was exactly the same as air travel is today - mundane and ordinary - at a time when tv audiences were transfixed by the extraordinary of the Apollo space missions - they were parallelling the everyday crossing of the Atlantic in an airliner to the voyage of Columbus. That scene, together with the the Pan-Am Orion space plane and the Hilton Hotel space station, for me is key to the rest of the film - it establishes a reference point for the events that follow - it says "in the future, this is ordinary - what follows is not..."
The same technique is used on the Discovery/Jupiter mission sequences, Bowman and Poole are shown doing ordinary everyday things (like jogging) in an extraordinary environment, Kubrick is using those scenes to normalise the 1968 audience into accepting those events as being unremarkable and everyday in the future, in contrast to the events that will follow the passage through the Star-gate (all those lines and colors ).
Those elements set the pace and meter of the whole - interplanetary space travel is long, slow and boring, it's not all wizz-bang of 50s B-movie Si-Fi.
A minor point about the music: no electronic and/or avant garde music was used in the film - the four pieces by György Ligeti (Requiem, Atmospheres, Lux Aeterna and Adventures) are all 100% orchestral and are Contemporary Classical (microtonal and polyrhythmic). It was a conscious decision by Kubrick not to use electronic music at all in the film - he would later use electronic music in Clockwork Orange (notably Timesteps). Again Kubrick is using the juxtaposition between the "ordinary" classical music of Richard and Johan Strauss during the "ordinary" space scenes to the "extraordinary" classical music of Ligeti during the "extraordinary" space scenes as a way of differentiating to the 1968 audience that the remarkable events (from their perspective) of space travel are mundane compared to what could be out there. The use of the chorale Requiem during the Monolith sequences perhaps sounds clichéd now because it has been parodied so much since, but again, at the time it was unexpected (and dare I say - mind-blowing), using it to "auralise" the silent signal of the Monoliths signified that they were ethereal, other-worldly and not of this earth. Edited by Dean - October 07 2012 at 06:08 |
|
What?
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 23 2005 Location: Caerdydd Status: Offline Points: 32995 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The youth isn't drained from Bowman. He lives his full life. He lives it in a created place by the beings where time means nothing..past and present coliide. He is eventually reborn as a "Starchild\" and gaurdian or watcher of the earth whose inteligence was given a nudge way back by the monolith.
The lights at the end were Bowman travelling through another Monolith in Jupiter orbit, it was a gateway to the universe..and other dimensions.
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 25 2011 Location: Los Angeles, CA Status: Offline Points: 10970 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
^ Well, thanks for setting some things straight, fellas. Looks like I should have read some extensive background material about the film after watching it.
About the music: ... wow. I thought it was electronic stuff, but if it was an orchestra, ... those must have been really elaborate arrangements. Someone probably toyed with acoustic phenomena or something. And, of course, it was easy for me to confuse avant-garde with contemporary classical.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
This is interesting:
|
|
What?
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 65513 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The Beast
A Russian tank and its crew get lost in the Afghan desert circa 1981 and are stalked by a small group of rebels. Moody and evocative with great desert photography and good cast. Recommended. |
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 25 2011 Location: Los Angeles, CA Status: Offline Points: 10970 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Devil
A horror teaser. Kind of like Final Destination, only fresh. Some of the script and some character development blows, though. ** / ****
Edited by Dayvenkirq - October 08 2012 at 22:50 |
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 65513 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Prometheus
Ridley Scott revisits old haunts with a gorgeously rendered conjecture about how the derelict ship in the first Alien film ended up a ghostship plagued with xenomorphic tadpoles. However, the direction of this fine franchise, once a visceral, organic, truly scary experience, has turned increasingly toward the realm of the spiritual and sublime, especially when paired with the biblically-titled Resurrection. What made this series so good - the simple reality of being human in a situation impossible to survive while isolated in outer space - seems to have been replaced by a slick "mankind must survive" moralism that tames and sterilizes this once dark and nightmarish vision of the future of space exploration. Prometheus has many good moments and it's hard to beat Mr. Scott's mastery of his form, but this is the first Alien flick I cannot firmly recommend. |
|
Jim Garten
Special Collaborator Retired Admin & Razor Guru Joined: February 02 2004 Location: South England Status: Offline Points: 14693 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The Cabin In The Woods
Saw this last night & thoroughly enjoyed it from start to finish; the movie goes seamlessly from shocks, to gore, to comedy & back again in a way I have never seen before - very refreshing to see such an original take on a standard mainstay of the genre. There are too many good scenes to list & too many good performances, but Mordecai the gas station attendant really stands out as an example of how to deconstruct a movie cliche - brilliantly played. I fully intend to watch this again very soon, but must try to keep count of the various nods to other films - if anyone enjoys any genre of horror movie from the last 20 or so years, you need to see this. My favorite line (which genuinely made me laugh out loud) sounds nothing out of context, but: "I'm still on speakerphone, aren't I" Definite 10/10 |
|
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 65513 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
^ yours is the second recommendation I've gotten for that one
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 25 2011 Location: Los Angeles, CA Status: Offline Points: 10970 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The Shining.
Well, ... first time I saw the movie in its entirety. Hm-m ... hm-m-m-m-m ... . Well, ... . Well, there are a good side to the film and the side that didn't work for me. I want to start with the one that didn't work for me. Some of the characters are not quite believable even when the supernatural forces aren't there. Jack acts a bit like a drunk person when he is not drunk and his mild-mannered wife is too mild-mannered. They are like lame parodies of themselves. That just confuses me. As a horror flick it does not work for me either. The two girls, the whole annoying "redrum" deal, the people from the past, the pig-faced bear giving a head to an elderly dude, the racist waiter, the tainted bartender (it's like some collective from South Park or The Simpsons) ... I don't know what the meaning of all that is. Kubrick must have had his reasons for those things, and those reasons are much too obscure in the film (as I see it). Also, he was stretching the rubber of time in some places. For instance, while watching the scene featuring the father-son talk in the bedroom, I had a rough time concentrating on what was being said because there were those long moments of silence between the lines of the dialogue. Smashing the idea of a snark about this aside, I'd say that ... Kubrick must have had his reasons for that. The bottom line is that this movie has so many spots that I personally perceive as moments of mediocrity that don't suit a horror flick. Am I too old to watch this kind of stuff? But then, if we turn the clock 10-15 years back, I probably would have felt uncomfortable seeing a nude woman in a bath. So, what kind of audience is this movie for? Is Kubrick trying to twist the subconscious of little kids or what? Now, to the good side. There are quite a few moments of drama in the movie that remind me of my past, of the time when I used to live with my stepdad. Steven Aguilar is really much like Jack Torrance, choking the inner peace out of my mother - a kind of relationship that essentially makes an impact on the sole child of the family. I don't know if I should rate this film just as a horror movie (and as one, it is not abysmal) or as a horror drama. The family relationship is clearly reflected but there isn't much drama compared to the creep factor of the film. Hm. Why did Stanley make things so difficult for me? ... Either way the rating will be the same for the aforementioned reasons. Final rating: ** / ****
Edited by Dayvenkirq - October 11 2012 at 03:07 |
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 65513 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Suspicion
Insidious suspense tale from Hitchcock with Cary Grant as a slick ponzie-schemer and Joan Fontaine the woman who loves him but increasingly smells trouble from her deceptive husband. Gradually unfolding plot pulls us along with slowly building tension and intimate moments. |
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 65513 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Dark Passage
Mesmerizing noir from '47 about escaped con Humphrey Bogart who flees to S.F. with admiring woman Lauren Bacall and tries to find the person who framed him for his wife's murder. Somber and taughtly told with great on-location shooting. Based on David Goodis' novel who later sued United Artists' Fugitive series for property infringement, and rightly so. Highly recommended. |
|
The Quiet One
Prog Reviewer Joined: January 16 2008 Location: Argentina Status: Offline Points: 15745 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
La Strada / Federico Fellini
Enjoyable whole through, although I was expecting something more unconventional cinematographically. Not that there's anything wrong with a straight and understandable plot, haha. Like most of these classics, further analysis should be seeked or thought. Recommended, although I'd say watch 8 & 1/2 first.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 65513 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Notorious
Slow but solid spy drama from Hitchcock, 1947, with Ingrid Bergman as the daughter of a Nazi who starts spying for the Americans on a dangerous German industrialist in Brazil. Not among Hitch's best but very good nonetheless. |
|
Post Reply | Page <1 102103104105106 220> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |