We updated! Go to /meta/ to report any bugs.
RULES HERE >>1
Check for weekly movie nights >>6
Movies, TV shows, Cartoon/Animes, Documentaries. Everything goes.
I just watched Blade Runner 2049 yesterday. It was pretty fucking good.
I've also been watching Ken Burns The Vietnam War and will start to watch Initial D later.
What are you a weeb....
I've been watching some Serial Experimental Lain, I still don't understand what's going on, and also watching the new Dragon Quest anime it's pretty good too bad it doesn't have that god-like OP we used to have in the arabic version, and for documentaries I always start watching Empire of Dust but I sleep half-way through it, it's not bad but I always pick a bad time to watch it
Hardly anything he does registers to me as expressive, it's like the ANTI-THESIS of expression to me, unless expression means having layers of differing lights. It's effectively just a series of colors and lights with no meaning, and I think it's representative of the commercialization on post-meaning. That's probably why it resonates with people because they can see the meaninglessness in his stuff and get stimulated by it. Here Blade Runner has a bunch of basic off-center and sporadically placed entities in a frame with no center just like a Marienbad shot, but the thing about it is this lack of any artistic integrity beyond just technically serving the compositions.
Yes, I see the behind the scenes for blade runner having the ring light, and yes I see all the colors in blade runner, but it's honestly a match made-in-heaven in a negative/postive way for that movie since it's about the banality and loss of life sense, loss of life essence in future noir setting, and it's adapted from being japan-run in old Blade Runner 80s, to being like a bunch of cheap-ass paper-thin architecture like new apartments they build nowadays. It's all very cheap and fake-modernist looking just like a whole bunch of the state of architecture and fashion today. The scene where Ryan is in the archive room with the yellow lighting and all the drawers have like fake woodgrain is clearly a conscious decision and fits along with the fake modernism of Deakins' photography, but there's no essence, there's no person behind the technique. It's just technique. I'm struggling to even describe it right now, but I can make a second review working out my deeper thoughts on this movie.
The only notable shot I remember from here that stands out is this one because the way the light bounces off the wall with no visible window. Background is just no light. Not impressive.
It's interesting how looking at all these latest cinematographers, their aspects are mainly about what subtle accentuations to the gradation of the photography are changed between. Like this Hoytema guy is very reminiscent of a lot of indie stuff and it's almost nigh impossible to tell the difference amongst all of them because of perhaps how the cameras just are today or perhaps like how scores for movies are subdued now mainly versus long long ago. To me I see it that all these new digital cinematographers that propped up since pretty much Deakins where Brother Art Thou and the sudden wave of DSLR's and stuff in 2010's, that they took kind of the rote way of how to shoot things with the same mid eye-level shots and also sticking late day hazy, kinda evening indoors look for everything or either blueish daytime look with hardly any sun and the main distinction ends up being picking up the rich parts to the gradation, the gradients of brown.
Something like pic related. All brown and dark tinted, very low lighting 'cause that's how digital supposedly shines best with is being more lightly lighted, not heavily lighted like old ways. And I'm pointing out a shot like that there because I can tell that that look there is something a buncha filmbuffs would go gaga over but it's nigh indistinguishable from a lot of the trends in that look throughout the 2010's. Perhaps though he set that up being the norm since that screenshot is from 2011 on the dot.
I see looking at screenshots from this movie that indie guys MAYBE intended to MIMIC this guy's look, 'cause you see this type of look all OVER indies and eventually spread to taking over all serious Hollywood movies moving forward. John Wick has that same gradient 'cept it's just not lit brown, lit with purple. But it still has that same look.
I think that's probably REALLY why a movie like The Master sticks out in people's recent minds. Because in trying to mimic Kubrick's structuralist frames (structuralist frames are frames like that Master sea shot with Joaquin layed down), he separates from the rest of everybody else that's mega into just being basic mid-shots with no real sense of composition or meaning. Mid-shots and closeups became the norm ever since the 90s, particularly when the aspect ration solidified into 2:35:1 as opposed to 1:88:1. When it got into the 235 things got very very squeezed and that shot of Keanu and above is what became the norm. It's something I just especially notice. It's ALMOST a type of photography that irritates me because it just wasn't the case at all before, cinematographers, directors were so much more creative before. I don't really know how to describe the types of these shots cause they're not designed with any meaning, it's just merely what became the standardized way to shoot in Hollywood moving forward into the 2010's. Then for comedies everything is fairly wide and basic 2-shot, characters sitting next to one another in the same frame, not against, but to the side of one another.
I'd say it's actually important to have a pic like this to compact the loss of identity and essence that looks to be our future judging by how aimless we are right now in the 21st century, BUT, I don't intend to look to dour on that being the case. I see things being renewed in the new generations. Deakins to me represents where prestige commercialism is at. That they're stifled for creativity in any capacity but they're increasing their technical acumen to stratospheric heights. And what I mean by "essence" is essence in terms of an individual quality that's beyond being typified. A lot of things can be typified very easily and quickly because that's the generality of reality. But it's not so easily that case. There's a lot of HIDDEN potential and discovery, creativity that comes from somebody really peering in and deeply exploring their identities, their existence. That leads to great art.
I find their stuff more enriching and emboldening than where the state of prestige commercialism is at, The Oscars, the work of Deakins, and so forth. It's all fake bourgeois with the prestige works versus either the highest in Hollywood that are actually determining our fates, Disney and the megacorps. It's either the megacorps or the small, the middle prestige like Deakins I see no use for, they're wasting space. When I see Deakins, I get absolutely nothing from, no sense of emotion, no life, no essence. It's just empty. Even Lubezki I find better. I actually got Tree of Life on bluray cause it was so cheap. I like that aspect of shooting, getting that camera nice and handheld INTO the scenes, really being part of it and not removed, but it's just the characters as human beings are nothing in it, the movie's very wafer-thin in what it's trying to do and show.
And it IS important to show a dearth of life with no sarcasm or even satire like a Sandler picture, but it's very feigned to me. Feigned in a way with the expectation of being considered quality. Every decision Deakins makes doesn't come from artistic creativity, it's just workmanlike plucking of basic modernist photography traits but absolutely drained of any intent or meaning. Let me share this pic comparison between Gordon and Deakins that I made a long time ago, because this really distilled down my major gripes, to be able to SEE the differences.
Call it cherrypicking and false equivalent shot selections, but the point of my comparison pictures are supposed to illustrate in that image is the aspect of cultural shifts and differences. Differentiation over time, what I'm concerned about, not singularly aesthetically minded, more about the bigger picture, the entirety. I wouldn't say it's just a matter sincerity because we're all going through new sincerity of expression in ourselves today. Even Deakins is sincere, but his work lacks the actual power of Gordon Willis. In this shot here, Brando's face with the black lighting on his eyes is more painful, more sorrowful. Deakins is more cold like Kubrick and for that being the case, he's more representative of our times today where people don't know what pain and struggle actually is and means. Jesse James really DOES looks like shampoo commercial compared to Bad Company.
Is there a movie were Galatea doesnt fucking dies?
The west has a hate boner against her.
That seems to be the pattern. It's a symptom of the rampant misandry. No, not only are there no good women because cultural imprinting turned them into whores, and not only can you not make your own loyal, loving alternative, you can't even live the fantasy vicariously through cinema because we're vindictive, jealous bitches. The only ones that are likely to escape the guillotine are manipulative, stronk types that stroke their whore egos like the Ex Machina succubus.
I will never forgive them
I just finished watching The Blob (1988) because I saw the Red Letter Media video discussing it and it piqued my curiosity. I normally hate any film that has even mild horror elements because I'm a huge baby and I can't stand the tension when I know something bad is going to happen to a character but I'm waiting for the knife to drop. This movie did have plenty of that, especially in the early phases when the blob is only the size of a dog or a person, and it did make me feel just as anxious as I thought it would.
I was able to get through it, and I'm glad that I did because it was a very tight, focused movie that didn't waste my time or have any poz like everything made these days. Some deaths were pretty gruesome to the point that I had to look at a different part of the screen, but the tension and suspense were crafted very well. I always had a clear idea of how the monster was evolving and the characters never felt like they were holding the idiot ball or acting in a contrived way. I was really surprised that one of the kids died in the sewer section since that kind of stuff is a big no-no in American cinema; it caught me completely off guard and made me wonder who else was going to die.
Definitely recommend it. I found a clean torrent on 1337 easily and downloaded it within 10 minutes, so it's not hard to find.
I've been going back and watching a lot of Godzilla films. Really liked them as a kid and they're still really fun to watch. Looking forward to pic related because I never got around to it when it came out.
Also the 1998 movie is far worse then I remember.
It's pretty good, my first Godzilla movie and now I get why this series is important, the series does have it's fun action but also has it's own special way of artistic expression.
I watched it when I was a wee little lad, good movie. I guess I will rewatch it.
After watching The Blob as I mentioned in >>177 I decided to get over another horror film, which I had often seen parodied and referenced but never actually watched myself: John Carpenter's The Thing.
It's good. If you've seen the movie then you know why it's good because it's one of those works that commands your attention. The initial few minutes were a bit boring, but once the story gets going there are a tonne of small details that kept me engaged. I though there would be more monster scenes, but huge stretches of the film are spent watching the men go at each other's throats. That was a pleasant surprise and much more gripping because it makes the monster scenes hit much harder. When I watched The Blob, I felt like every scene where someone was alone would lead to a gruesome death and it made me anxious, but watching The Thing made me feel tense in a much less fearful way. The only thing that really put me off the movie was the lingering shots of gore and viscera we get near the start, but that's just me being squeamish.
If you haven't seen it yet, then I totally recommend it: the film's praises are richly deserved. Just like before, I found a 1080p version on 1337 and downloaded it within half an hour.
I watched the Blade movie trilogy over the last week (again due to an RLM video) and I was pleasantly surprised. There's something about the 90s style - trenchcoat, black leather, swords/knives, dual pistols, sunglasses indoors and at night, etc. - that I really enjoy even to this day. Maybe I watched too much Trigun at a formative age. In any case, I think the Blade movies may be the only film series I've ever seen where the second movie is better than the first - not just that it handles its themes better or that it has more of the setting to use, but its structure is better and the characters are used for better actions.
Pure 90s cheese and about a 50/50 split between the good (Wesley Snipes calling people mothafuckas and shooting guns) and the bad (the villains trying to make me care about them). What I found puzzling was the action: some of it is shot well, since Snipes was one of the choreographers and he's a martial artist, so you have longer and wider shots that actually let me see what the actors are doing. Then you have some truly bewildering shots where the camera is moving so fast and everything is so blurred that I literally can't see what's going on. The movie is longer than it needs to be and the visual effects have not aged well, particularly the stuff at the end, but if you have some time to spare and you want to see gunfire and swordfights then it's worth your time.
An improvement over the first, which shouldn't come as a surprise since it was directed by Guillermo del Toro before he drank the Kool-Aid. The cast is more like an ensemble, since we have Blade, Whistler coming back from the dead, Whistler's replacement (played by a young Norman Reedus), the usual vampires, a new strain of vampires, and half a dozen vampires that Blade teams up with. There's a lot more CGI this time and the action is mostly focused on guns instead of martial arts, but the character beats are simple and always present - thus, the action isn't mindless and I actually care what's happening onscreen. Genuinely a solid action movie that doesn't come with any caveats about its quality aside from the usual stylistic choices of an early 00s Hollywood film. The new strain of vampires look really stupid, I suppose, but that's the only real problem.
Total trash and not worth anyone's time. Blade fights Dracula and teams up with a previously unknown cell of vampire hunters. Dracula gets played by some square-headed dude with a buzz cut and barely does anything throughout the entire plot. The vampire hunter cell has some bitch who can't act or throw a punch, Patton Oswalt (who thankfully dies), and Ryan Reynolds of all people, whose character tries to be funny in every single scene and doesn't succeed even once. I don't normally care much about celebrities, but it's really impressive that the writers managed to make a comic relief character played by Ryan Reynolds into someone I wanted to die at the end of the film. Triple H also plays one of Dracula's henchmen, but he doesn't do much.
There are no circumstances under which anyone would or should enjoy watching Blade Trinity. I will forever use it as an example of Hollywood filmmaking ruining what should have been a fun concept. It's a real shame.
Just watched whiplash and damn is it good, the whole dynamic between andrew and fletcherr is fucking great and I'm sucker for good jazz music.
Did you watch it lads, if you do tell me what did you think about it.
Finished The Hill (1965) starring Sean Connery. It is about an officer (Sean himself) who is arrested for attacking his superior and taken to a prison in northern Africa. Said prison is basically a holding place for all of her majesty's soldiers who tried fleeing, stealing, or anything else of that nature. Some of the officers and men in charge run an extremely disciplined prison that ultimately leads to big issues later in the movie.
As for what I thought about it, I will say I very much recommend it. The movie is set in WW2, but the viewer is only aware of within the prison. This is a pretty nice change from every movie being set in the time period having to lecture on the sides involved. Instead it focuses only on the Brits and the men who are imprisoned there. I came into this movie to see another Sean Connery film, but was just as impressed with Harry Andrews and Ian Hendry who help ratchet up the tension. The start of the film sets the stage, but you really start to feel the tension the longer the movie goes on. As both sides of the conflict seem to start losing it and lashing out.