Jump to content

.


BloodBoal

Recommended Posts

He likes films that are flashy and cinematic; He doesn't care for plot because he just just read a book if he wanted plot.

This is kind of very cinematic with all its gimmicks at play, but it also really isn't ABOUT anything other than some actor's egos and strive for self-worth.

It was almost insufferable, especially at 2 hours long!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this one was phenomenal.

He got it!

I'm waiting for your 40 000 word review!

Karol

In order to do that, I'd have to watch the film first!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this one was phenomenal.

He got it!

I'm waiting for your 40 000 word review!

Karol

In order to do that, I'd have to watch the film first!

I know. Do you think that will stop him? ;)

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does it have to be ABOUT anything more than that?

Well, I guess some people don't find that terribly interesting from the point of drama.

For me it lacked certain.... I don't know... subtlety. It's really all on the screen and spelled out as well. I thought it lacked something for brain.

And I do understand the film is self-aware in the way it presents its world. That its both about its story and as well as mocking of that very story.

It just wasn't interesting, as I said. Nothing to sink teeth into.

Also, I thought the way it was shot/acted/scored didn't contribute all that much, other than drawing attention to itself. Again, it might have something to do with that semi-postmodern mumbo jumbo. But still...

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These sentiments are pretty much how I felt about Boyhood.

Well, the problem with Boyhood, and main character specifically, is that he's basically an avatar for Linklater's ego (and his own pretensions). And I can see how people might not like it for this.

But it also had Patricia Arquette who provided it with substantial dose of humanity.

Yes, Blue Ruin is a fantastic film. I agree.

Karol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boyhood was a husk of a film, seemingly existing only for the sake of making a movie over a long period of time. Whatever profound reflections that was supposed to conjure up in the viewer didn't show up for me. I've found people-watching to be a more successful method of achieving what that film wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm well aware that Under The Skin and Blue Ruin played at a couple film festivals in 2013, but they did not open to the public for anyone to see until 2014, and they were eligible for this year's Oscars, not last year's.

Under The Skin was robbed, by the way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interstellar, Boyhood, Under The Skin, and Blue Ruin are 2014 films much better than Birdman

Nah. Birdman is the best of that lot, and maybe my favourite film of the year.

Haven't seen Blue Ruin though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interstellar, Boyhood, Under The Skin, and Blue Ruin are 2014 films much better than Birdman

Nah. Birdman is the best of that lot, and maybe my favourite film of the year.

Haven't seen Blue Ruin though.

For me Inherent Vice, Blue Ruin, Under the Skin, Ida and Locke all exceed Birdman.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't seen Locke. Under the Skin and Ida were great.

Inherent Vice is a mixed bag for me, and admittedly a letdown. I know that Pynchon is supposed to be quite dense, but I don't think Anderson quite pulled it off with his adaptation. Plenty to like in the film, but it all just doesn't gel together very well. I prefer The Master.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inherent Vice is a mixed bag for me, and admittedly a letdown. I know that Pynchon is supposed to be quite dense, but I don't think Anderson quite pulled it off with his adaptation. Plenty to like in the film, but it all just doesn't gel together very well. I prefer The Master.

I think this is exactly the point of it. :) It's quite a straightforward adaptation of the book, actually. One of the closest I've ever seen actually. The book is very much like that and it's also his most "mainstream" work. Now, Gravity's Rainbow or The Crying Lot of 49. These are completely bonkers.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I've heard. I really have to dig into Pynchon sometime soon.

I don't mind bonkers, but I need stylistic cohesiveness. There are a lot of promising moments in the film that pop up (most of the compiled into the great teasers and trailers), but then are tossed out the window. Characters like Shasta, Mickey Wolfman, his wife, Witherspoon's character, etc etc all offer great promise and some of the highlights of the film, but they don't quite live up to that promise. You have their flashy intros, and neat setpieces, but they don't stick enough for me to substantially get into them.

Almost felt like one of the later Hobbit films, with too much crammed into it. Just not nearly as poorly handled of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.