Matt C 452 Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 8 minutes ago, Þekþiþm said: Ah. It seems to be making a comeback. Greta Gerwig said that Spielberg convinced her to shoot Little Women on celluloid. It really does make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 There were moments during Godzilla: King of the Monsters (digitally shot) at the cinema where I could have sworn it was film stock, but I might attribute that to the anamorphic distortions and lack-of-sharpness issues inherent within that process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chen G. 3,940 Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 On large-format digital, there’s really no reason to shot on anamorphic anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 Unless you just like the look of it. Chen G. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,323 Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 Or if you want a wider aspect ratio and still keep all of the resolution of the 65mm camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chen G. 3,940 Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 In film, shooting anamorphic basically allows you to compress more detail unto the filmstock. In digital, the amount of detail is governed entirely by the pixel-count (minus filtering loses, of course). The only distinction is that there's no need for cropping, and of course any cropping then requires blowing the picture back up, so there is a loss of detail. But then, the kind of anamorphics they use on these cameras requires horizontal cropping, too. Besides, spherical looks more naturalistic and since these cameras give you lots of detail to begin with, its gradually becoming the better option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pellaeon 593 Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 Just saw last year’s Shazam! Pretty great fun! I thought they could have done better with realizing the Seven Deadly Enemies of Man; they seemed kind of generic. But great performances and lots of heart without too much boring bang-crash. Matt C 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 22 minutes ago, Chen G. said: Besides, spherical looks more naturalistic and since these cameras give you lots of detail to begin with, its gradually becoming the better option. Sure, but spherical doesn't yield those oval-shaped bokeh balls and other weird movie-like distortions like warped heads and elongated objects that's so distinct in anamorphic cinematography. Filmmakers obviously dig it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 7,973 Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 1917. It was a fine film and very nice to watch but I also find it to be emotionally flat. That is perhaps, ironically, because its accomplishments as a piece of filmmaking. As the result it becomes more impressive as a technical achievement rather than meaningful and affecting story. It's a bit of a gimmick and that cheapens any message behind this concept. As a war film, it might be a bit of a failure but still a really solid "movie experience". Thomas Newman's score was a disappointment except for two cues (you know which ones). Karol Chen G. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Probably needed a night time camp scene in a church where one of the characters blabbers on about nothing for five minutes but by the time he dies later you suddenly care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 7,973 Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 8 minutes ago, Quintus said: Probably needed a night time camp scene in a church where one of the characters blabbers on about nothing for five minutes but by the time he dies later you suddenly care. Actually it is very much like that film. Pretty much exactly. And they both have that problem. Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naïve Old Fart 9,488 Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 8 minutes ago, Quintus said: Probably needed a night time camp scene in a church where one of the characters blabbers on about nothing for five minutes but by the time he dies later you suddenly care. Ah! You mean HIGHLANDER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 4 minutes ago, crocodile said: Actually it is very much like that film. Pretty much exactly. And they both have that problem. Karol Contrived feelz are the worst. 3 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said: Ah! You mean HIGHLANDER The Sound of Music, actually. Naïve Old Fart and The Illustrious Jerry 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 7,973 Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 3 minutes ago, Quintus said: Contrived feelz are the worst. Sure, but that is not the real problem with Mendes' film. It's the fact I've been thinking of "oh wow cool shot" or "how did they do that?" rather than being invested in anything happening on the screen. Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 I fancy it. Just need to make the effort to go see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naïve Old Fart 9,488 Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 I feel a topic, coming on: WHAT WAS THE LAST FILM YOU SAW THAT HAD A SPEECH GIVEN BY SOMEONE IN A CHURCH?* *other places of worship are available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 7,973 Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 It's worth watching on big screen, sure. I would go if I were you. Despite everything I just said. Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 I actually don't mind technical virtuosity for its sake, as entertainment. James Cameron made some great entertainments that way. Naïve Old Fart and crocodile 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naïve Old Fart 9,488 Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Does the whole "one shot" idea work, or would the film be better served by more "traditional" storytelling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 7,973 Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 24 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said: Does the whole "one shot" idea work, or would the film be better served by more "traditional" storytelling? It does work as a spectacle, sure. Does it go beyond that? Not so sure. Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 A Hidden Life This was on its way out with one showing available at my local theater. Glad I was finally able to catch it. It’s certainly Malick’s best film since 2011, with a return to more traditional story structure. Even so, it doesn’t really nail that sweet combination of nature, philosophy, and human condition, that his earlier films executed so well. Howard’s score was great, but I kept thinking it would lead into a passage from The Village. I wouldn’t have minded if Malick just straight reused that score, since the melodies are so similar. Cinematography is excellent, as expected, and the wide shots are breathtaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Me and the missus were planning to go and see 1917 this afternoon. That was until she brought up the website for our local Odeon - £15 each! Hahaha! THIRTY QUID for a couple to go and see a movie. Yeah right! And cinema chains wonder why they're struggling. Netflix it is then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeping Strings 2,342 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 That's insane ... Belfast Odeon is £7.25 for online booking and £6.50 at the box-office (£9.25/£8.50 for the 'Premier' seats). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,323 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 On 1/17/2020 at 10:31 AM, crocodile said: It does work as a spectacle, sure. Does it go beyond that? Not so sure. Karol Another Theme Park movie that isn't about people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmilson 7,367 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 2 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said: That's insane ... Belfast Odeon is £7.25 for online booking and £6.50 at the box-office (£9.25/£8.50 for the 'Premier' seats). You guys are lucky, here there's a 10% fee for online booking. So, a ticket that costs 14 reais are sold by 15.40 reais. That's why I very rarely buy tickets online for cinema. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KK 3,307 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 7 hours ago, Quintus said: Me and the missus were planning to go and see 1917 this afternoon. That was until she brought up the website for our local Odeon - £15 each! Hahaha! THIRTY QUID for a couple to go and see a movie. Yeah right! And cinema chains wonder why they're struggling. Netflix it is then! That's ridiculous. Luckily only paid $12 in comparison, because it was thankfully not a 3D movie. With that said, I do suggest finding a way to watch it on the big screen. It's worth it. 7 hours ago, Koray Savas said: A Hidden Life This was on its way out with one showing available at my local theater. Glad I was finally able to catch it. It’s certainly Malick’s best film since 2011, with a return to more traditional story structure. Even so, it doesn’t really nail that sweet combination of nature, philosophy, and human condition, that his earlier films executed so well. I agree that it wasn't as ambitious in its scope as his earlier films, but I found it to say beautiful things about faith, ego, surrender and speaks to Malick's belief in the inherent "goodness" of the human condition. One of my favourite films of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
publicist 4,643 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 I just saw it (1917) after arriving in Vienna. Understand the criticism about it being ,affect‘ cinema - a few typical movie conventions too many - but it’s still engrossing in a way only movies can offer. I just wish Mendes would have second or third drafted a few of his humanist appeals, which all seemed very on the nose (Come back to Us!). Tom Newman was forced to carpet the whole damn movie and it wasn’t the bright idea. Still, a good B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KK 3,307 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Agreed. The writing is definitely on the banal side but I actually appreciate the starkness of those vignettes. The film seemed to survey the war experience as a whole over the character itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 3 hours ago, KK said: I agree that it wasn't as ambitious in its scope as his earlier films, but I found it to say beautiful things about faith, ego, surrender and speaks to Malick's belief in the inherent "goodness" of the human condition. One of my favourite films of the year. Oh definitely. I enjoyed it very much. Malick on the big screen is a rarity, so I’m glad I didn’t wait until blu-ray. An amusing anecdote: While waiting for the film to start, an old couple were conversing with another old couple, and said that the movie is long and will probably leave halfway through. When questioned why you would only watch half a movie, they said that they could probably figure out the rest from the first hour. Must have had no idea who Malick was! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 7,973 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 11 hours ago, Quintus said: Me and the missus were planning to go and see 1917 this afternoon. That was until she brought up the website for our local Odeon - £15 each! Hahaha! THIRTY QUID for a couple to go and see a movie. Yeah right! Was that Odeon LUXE, by any chance? Telling you, mate, pay £17.99 a month for limitless and see everything as many times as you like. Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 452 Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 14 hours ago, Quintus said: Me and the missus were planning to go and see 1917 this afternoon. That was until she brought up the website for our local Odeon - £15 each! Hahaha! THIRTY QUID for a couple to go and see a movie. Yeah right! And cinema chains wonder why they're struggling. Netflix it is then! Don't UK cinemas have a discount day during the week to drum up business? Here in the U.S., many theater chains have a Tuesday discount where the tickets are $5-$8 all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brundlefly 2,385 Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 23 hours ago, publicist said: Tom Newman was forced to carpet the whole damn movie and it wasn’t the bright idea. And there goes my urge to watch it as soon as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 On 1/18/2020 at 5:41 PM, publicist said: Tom Newman was forced to carpet the whole damn movie and it wasn’t the bright idea. Schmaltz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 7,973 Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 26 minutes ago, Quintus said: Schmaltz? No, non-descript droning. Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 2,833 Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 I saw Jojo Rabbit on Friday and it’s great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brundlefly 2,385 Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 7 hours ago, Alex said: I saw Jojo Rabbit on Friday and it’s great. No, not great. The coming-of-age-part is very well done, but the satirical aspect is vacuous and embarrassing. The Illustrious Jerry 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
publicist 4,643 Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 On 1/19/2020 at 8:27 PM, crocodile said: No, non-descript droning. And, tell no one, but i even found the much-heralded Night Window sequence to be rather on the superficial side. The cue is great for a display of awe and wonder but i found it - in context of the movie at hand - a bit too polished and film-music like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 2,833 Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 2 hours ago, Brundlefly said: No, not great. The coming-of-age-part is very well done, but the satirical aspect is vacuous and embarrassing. I respectfully disagree. I found it to be a absurd, though at times poignant satire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brundlefly 2,385 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 2 hours ago, Alex said: I respectfully disagree. I found it to be a absurd, though at times poignant satire. Pure absurdity and a few successful gags are not sufficient. That complex topic couldn't be more simplified than in this film. The Illustrious Jerry 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Illustrious Jerry 3,356 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 I'm inclined to agree with @Brundlefly here. Jojo Rabbit was quite underwhelming as a satire, and while it had its moments I was ultimately dissapotined in its elementary presentation of a concept that was otherwise overflowing with potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loert 2,509 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Jojo Rabbit - I give it a solid B+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 452 Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 Parasite It's actually worth the hype and Oscar nominations. Boon Joon-ho keeps the movie on an even keel, keeping the plot unpredictable (but tangible) while expertly handling black comedy and suspense. The acting is excellent, especially Song Kang-ho, and the production specs are top-notch. I'm surprised Hong Kyung-pyo didn't get an Oscar nomination for Best Cinematography, because the camerawork is sublime. It's definitely worth checking out in theaters. An original film that can't really be pegged into one genre. mrbellamy and crocodile 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brundlefly 2,385 Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 18 hours ago, Matt C said: I'm surprised Hong Kyung-pyo didn't get an Oscar nomination for Best Cinematography, because the camerawork is sublime. I'm not surprised. Movie award juries infamously haven't got a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chen G. 3,940 Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 1917 One-shot (actually, two) gimmick is gimmick, who would’ve guessed... It works in moments though: By far the best compositional choice of the whole of the piece happens early, when the two soldiers set off, and by far the most arresting shot is early in the night scene, where there’s what can only be described as a symphony of alternating light and shadows. A precious few moments of humanity work, too, but aren’t enough to fully elevate this beyond Oscar-munching. Liked it. ***1/2 out of ***** crocodile 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KK 3,307 Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Bombshell It's no Big Short. A bit too stale and muted for that, but it has its moments, where you get a sense of the culture of defending creeps over at Fox at the time. Lithgow as a shouty Ailes nails it, and Theron disappears into Kelly, even if its a little too calculated in my opinion. But the whole thing is just kind of flat. The score had some interesting moments though. Burning A much subtler slice of auteurship than South Korea's more popular Parasite. Lee Chang-dong has a more dreamy language to his storytelling. This film is not interested in providing answers, but does ask for an attention to detail so that we probe deeper into its characters over the mystery it's built on. Beautifully shot, there is clearly a lot of great work happening in South Korean cinema. publicist 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rough cut 1,714 Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 Terminator Dark Fate I don’t know what the fuss is about. I though it was a good movie. I didn’t see any of the SJW-themes that reviewers have lamented drags the movie down, but found it to be an entertaining action movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 Little Women (2019) What a wonderful movie. The story is told with confidence, charm, and skill. I was under its spell from beginning to end. It is immediately my favorite screen version of a story I have loved for more than 20 years. Saoirse is a goddess gifted to us from heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeping Strings 2,342 Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 1917 - sincerely hope this wins awards. A well-paced, riveting, suspenseful and moving WW1 tale, superbly directed by Mendes. John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,323 Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 1 hour ago, Sweeping Strings said: 1917 - sincerely hope this wins awards. Didn't we agree that awards are only about politics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brundlefly 2,385 Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 From a directorial point of view the Oscar should go to Bong Joon-ho, followed by Martin Scorsese, followed by Quentin Tarantino, followed by Sam Mendes, followed by Todd Phillips, which is not stating that the latter did his job badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now