Chen G.

Its true of all movies, though: if one wants to truly appreciate or analyse a film, one ought to see it twice. Not really. His films aren't abstract works. They have clear meaning.

Brother!

Isn't scary, though. I'd probably put it as atmospheric. Creepy, perhaps.

The marketing certainly makes it seem that way.

I think it is a masterpiece when viewed (aptly, I would say) as an action-comedy. If you try to view it in any way as a dramatic narrative (although of course comedies also have dramatic elements) it really isn’t something to look twice at: high-key cinematography, larger-than-life characters that for some reason act like nine year olds, an empathetic but wholly unmenacing villain, etc... But as a comedy? Bloody marvelous.

Really, I didn’t find the original Guardians of the Galaxy all that funny or endearing. I think it’s all too easy to refer to that film, by sheer virtue of the fact of how goddamn “out there” it is, aesthetically, as Marvel’s most artistic film. To my mind, The Avengers remains their absolute masterpiece. I love that movie.

It sure doesn’t look like it.

I miss some of the highlights of Return of the King: The Charge of the Rohirrim and the unabridged destruction of the ring. Oddly enough, when suites from the individual films are played, the latter of the two pieces is featured: Now imagine the catharsis of hearing that at the end of The Lord of the Rings Symphony. For my money, you'd sandwich the four movements from The Hobbit after "The Prophecy" and "The Shire" and place this instead of the OSTs destruction of the ring, which it currently features.

Oh, absolutely not. I live for stylistic devices in films. All I'm saying is don't overdo it: don't use the stylization as a buffer between the audience and the story. We tend to think about contemporary filmmaking as much more producer-dependant but that's not really the case any more than it was in earlier decades. Even with Marvel, perhaps the most overbearing studio, The Avengers and Age of Ultron are Wheadon films, Iron Man is a Faverou film, and Guardians of the Galaxy is A Gunn film through-and-through. Besides, most big-name auteur directors are also co-producers on their films.

Yeah. Generally, I like to watch a full film live to projection than I do a suite from the film's soundtrack, but I'd never say that the availability of live-to-projection shows makes the symphony redundant. There's something to be said for a two-hour musical "summary" or "abstract" of the work. Essentially, that's what most OSTs (if they're any good) are.

Was it David Lynch who said he dislikes it when the director ostensibly stands between the audience and the film waving his arms, as if to say "Look at me! I'm directing!"

Occasionally, there’s a four night “cycle” starting with the Symphony and following with each film live to projection.

Shore should just put these four movements into The Lord of the Rings Symphony.

Because having Andy Serkis do a motion-capture character with a couple of Gollum-like features wasn't too much? Which is to say nothing of this "battering ram" thing in The Last Jedi. If stormtroopers were starting to call out "Grond! Grond!" it wouldn't be too out of place. But I guess I shouldn't complain too much. There's a lot of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit in Star Wars' blood from its very inception. Originally, Obi Wan and Luke meeting would have featured dialogue that was a pretty close paraphase of the "Good Morning" dialogue from The Hobbit. Another suspect piece of dialogue: "Whats in there?" - "only what you take with you" - its essentially Galadriel's mirror. None of this is bad in any way, of course: its nice that these two series share some blood.

Marvel? “Serious?” Seriously? I mean, sure there are a few serious-ish Marvel films: The Winter Soldier, Infinity War, Thor 2, (one of their very worst), Age of Ultron, Avengers 2.5 (Civil War) - but the rest of their catalog is predominantly comedic: they’re action-comedies. They’ve dialed up the comedy as time went on with Ragnarok, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man and Spider-Man, but I’d say even some of their earlier films (especially the Avengers, which I would still say is their masterpiece) are best seen as comedies. Even when they go serious, the humor is still great: I still get a chuckle from just thinking about the exchange between Groot and Captain America. And at any rate, none of their "serious" entries is anywhere near as serious as the Nolan entries, which is to say nothing of Logan. Its just that since their main body of work is so comedic, the occasional Winter Soldier feels so very serious in contrast, even though when compared to other works in the genre - it isn't really. I suppose I like my Marvel in a comedic mode, but not so-over-the-top as Ragnarok was; and I need them to have Robert Downey Jr. in some way, shape or form. Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark is certainly the center pillar of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. So much so that I’d rather seen him in charge of The Avengers from the outset: I know Captain America is supposed to be at the forefront of Marvel, but the reality of the films is that he isn’t, and that should have been acknowledged in The Avengers.

Yes. When I watched the supposed forth Indiana Jones film, that was one of the things I was most suprised at: it takes a hell of a lot of talent (or, rather, the inverse of talent) to make Cate Blanchett look unappealing, but they did it!

Yeah, but this issue with titles is as true to books as it is to films. The title is meant to draw people into the work, more than it is meant to inform them of the work's actual content, which is fine.

I always caution against taking too much of a lead from a film's title as to its content. To my mind, the title is a marketing element, first and foremost. Its part of the brand, as it were. More often that not, it has little bearing on the actual plot. To take a few of my own examples: What does the title "The Silence of the Lambs" tell you about the plot film? What does the title of Signs tell you? The thing that tells you what a film is or isn't is the opening two sequences, and even then a film often "turns" significantly at the midpoint, as indeed War of the Worlds does.

See, this kind of respone boggles my mind, regardles of War of the Worlds (which I don't care for very much). The whole idea of highlights in film is that they are savored. How much Hannibal Lecter is there in The Silence of the Lambs? How much is the xenomorph shown in Alien? The aliens in Signs? The Shark in Jaws? No matter how spectacular a visual is, how ferocious a character design looks, how exciting an action beat or camera movement is, or how engaging a piece of drama is - if an audience is exposed to it for enough time, they'll grow used to it, saturated in it and eventually tired of it.

Its a straight-forward, alien encouter film, just filmed in a none-straight-forward (read: Kubrick-y) way. Its about a transcendant alien race which assisted mankind's evolution (and is supposedly the origin of mankind's religious beliefs) and left behind a series of beacons at growing distances, such that once manking has the means and boldness to trace them and reach the furthest beacon (which requires the ability of space travel), they'd be granted a trip around the universe, as well as audience with the aliens and subsequentally be transformed into a higher state of being, as well. Essentially, the movie is about glorifying human space travel (which was just about to start in real-life history) as if it were a stepping stone towards the next stage in human evolution. Simple as that. Also this: https://touringinstability.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-aliens-that-almost-appeared-in-kubricks-2001/

How?

I like the one in Revenge of the Sith where he uses a building in the frame to hide the wipe to an overlook of Padme’s apartment.

That’s what Kubrick was after...

It was twenty minutes longer in the premiere. Kubrick cut some footage out during the initial run. Happened with other films of his, as well. Retrofitting films is not a new thing for Hollywood.

Yeah. Its actually quite straight-forward. Kubrick just ran out of money (it happens when you do so many takes for every shot in 2:40-minute movie) to actually show the aliens.