Oh I'm sorry, Did I Break Your Conversation........Well Allow Me A Movie Thread by S&T

[mronegative]

But this feels more like some sort of buyers remorse type of deal, where he knows he's done some craptastic movies and now wants to distance himself so maybe he can be taken a little more seriously.. Since his star will be huge as CP said

Yeah...I think he just took an accounting for his own career. I mean look who he's been hanging around. Renner was the star of an Oscar winning movie. ScarJo's been. RDJ's got Oscar noms. Ruffalo was the king of critically acclaimed indies and has a nom. Joss is Oscar nommed and probably the most liked and respected figure in comic movies outside of RDJ. Hiddleston is doing Shakespeare and tripping over Oscar nominees wanting to work with him. Hell...Hemsworth just stretched his legs in Rush. He's got that Brad Pitt charisma. He might make a run.

And then there's Chris Evans.

He's the only one who...Avengers and his comic character is the height of their career?
I mean he tried with Iceman and Snowpiercer...Ice had hype but it wasn't good, and Snow barely got a release here.
And he seems like a super self-aware dude, so that probably weighs on him.

 

[venom lyrix]

Even with a director like Aronofsky & an actor like Crowe, that movie had disaster written all over it. I was never remotely interested in seeing the movie when it was announced.

agreed, I felt exactly the same way.

but it's one of those films you (me) have to see because of how big it is and who is attached

 

[Master Zik]

What does this mean for Capt and the future of this revolutionary, albeit unwieldy, super franchise they have started with The Avengers...brilliant move by film makers none the less.

They'll just kill Evans as Steve Rogers and bring in Bucky Winter soldier to be the new Cap like the comics and hopefully keep it that way

I don't think the Evans situation is that black and white.

Obviously, he thought he wanted to be a star when he began. Who doesn't, right? Take one role like that when you look like that, and you're going to keep getting those calls. And nobody is turning to an actor like Chris Evans to be in Beginners, Garden State, Juno, etc.

You guys are right, though. I don't think he's some actor of a generation that is being oppressed. And sure, he took the money, but apparently he was hate-acting in and slandering the movies along the way. Nobody cared, though. They knew they had him locked up, and just wanted the movies made because it's a guaranteed $100+ million. He can say what he wants; we'll all be rich soon. Who cares.

That is the embodiment of Hollywood's issues. Actors want to work on good movies just as badly as some of us want to watch them. Pretty sure no one goes to school for this, then comes into the game wanting to be a superhero their entire career. Or any permanent action star. But enough good movies just aren't there, and a lot of times, you are what you are to the major decision-makers. Just like any other job, you have to do whatever they tell you for awhile before you can become the boss or meet someone that gives you the opportunity you've been waiting for.

So yeah, you can say he sold out for the money. But he got out. And at only 32. It's not like he did it his whole life like some of these action lifers do. I'll be curious to see what he comes up with as a director with his unique perspective.

It's still his own fault though. I mean "hate acting" through movies you don't like and complaining about them while doing them? That just shows how dumb dude is. If you're not giving your best performance for every role you'll have less chance to breakout of your box you put yourself in to be spotted by a really good director or producer to get picked up for quality work you actually want to do. It's happened plenty times before. Doing indie flicks that don't even get picked up by Cannes or Tribeca isn't gonna help. Look at Ledger going from that Knight's tale movie to Broke Back to Joker. Even though I'm not sold as him as the character look at Eisenberg kinda going in the opposite direction of real quality films with a focus on acting to getting the nod for Lex Luthor in a Superman movie. Dudes always doing their best cuz you don't know who's watching.

Evans is just mad cuz he knows what's in store for him. He's gonna be like any other of those actors that was just average for most of their career had a few chances to be more than that but ended up in too many mediocre joints to last. He'll fade out of memory and just be a blip.

Good luck to him as a director.

 

[Maximus Meridius]

Ride Along was pretty good. I didn't know what to expect but it was funny.

 

[sb]

I can't go on social media without HP being spoiled . FML.
I'm just trying to finish the books asap.

everyone dies at the end

 

[sb]

just finished 12 years a slave. just damn . powerful film. however dont think i will see it again any time soon.

 

[johnnyredstorm]

Venom, did the rock dudes look anything like the structure on Easter Island?

 

[macbk]

it is and it isn't.

While he directed and co-wrote the film, it isn't a bad movie. Visually it impressive, there are strong scenes and the character of Noah is really torn down from this idea of "hero."

my biggest hurdle with the film, even before I sat down in the theater was a simple question for Aronofsky: "Can you make me care about the subject matter enough to invest in since I am not even a little bit religious?"

Walking out of the film my answer was sort-of. Watching it, I was very luke warm on it.

Like I said, I'm having a very hard time really quantifying my feelings for it. It's not bad, it's just not very good. But that could be because I don't take into account the religious aspect. Or perhaps it wasn't what I was expecting based on what I did know of Noah.

I thought it would be an epic disaster film focusing on the flood and the consequences of it, and it really wasn't. Far from it.

I don't even know if that answers your question.

Kind of does. I too thought it would focus on the epic flooding and the creation of the ark. I wouldn't mind giving the movie a watch though, even if its for Crowe alone.

Do you mind sharing the name of the film message board you mentioned in one of your other posts?

 

[JCMojica24]

Devil's Knot is available for DirecTV customers right now if you don't wanna wait for the release in May.

 

[lawdog1]

Too long a story of what made me think of this, but I want to recommend a 1991 indie movie called Flirting. Has Nicole Kidman and a young Thandie Newton. Basically about awkward teenage enfatuation/love and related concepts. Remember really enjoying it when I saw it. Don't know how one would find it now, but if you can, it's worth a watch.

 

[T0INE]

Ride Along was pretty good. I didn't know what to expect but it was funny.

Ride Along was cool. Tika Sumpter was looking [Bernice Mac] noice [/Bernie Mac].

Catching up on this thread, I lost it when the Black Dynamite clips were posted.

Poor Euphoria.

 

[antidope]

Just Finished Wolf of Wall Street. Great movie

 

[papichuloo]

Ride Along was pretty good. I didn't know what to expect but it was funny.

I didn't think this movie was that funny. It had a couple scenes where I chuckled, but imo this is definitely one of cube and harts worst movie

 

[MetalMario]

 

 
I saw The Great Beauty and loved it. I love italian films because a lot of the time I have no idea what they're about

that was a joke to myself because I'm studying italian films right now and been going through Fellini and Rossellini's collections. I went in with the same mindset of 8 1/2 which is Fellini's 8th movie he made but since its main character is based off Fellini himself and his troubles as a director he called it half a movie. troubled director (Fellini) directing a movie about a troubled director (Guido) directing a movie. inception

anyways going with that mindset I kinda hoped Jep in The Great Beauty was somewhat a reflection of the director of Great Beauty

hey, what do you think was wrong with Ramona?

my favorite scene where Jep ethers that woman at the dinner party, sheesh I almost wanted him to stop

and the little girl painting.

I've never seen 8 1/2, but i'm interested

this movie is just straight up gorgeous from start to finish

i just did some screencaps of all the suits on my blog today

Sorry for the late response, thread moved fast as of late

That was my favourite scene as well, with everyone shaking their heads thinking he's going in and not pulling out word to team raw on her.

For your Ramona question I think she wanted to be youthful, or as much as she was able to. She was first introduced that she shops for everything

and doesn't explain why. She also strips when she doesn't need to (she's taken care of by everyone around her) and enjoys Jeps company/affair for him more than just a bone... so why?

Girls love shopping, to impress people or themselves to keep up with today's fashion. fashion my be created by the old but worn by the young, and shes in the middle. Stripping now... my opinion still but stripping or any scandalous form of youth like that is to show a woman at her peak, or to be able to express themselves at a peak of your life (like pro sports for example). So I'm saying the peak of someone's life is at their 20's. Jep wrote his novel in his 20's which was his peak and has been riding it this entire time and he's now realizing he's in the fallout/peaceful/retirement times (the entire film). I can't remember if Ramona was even mentioned in her younger days but with stripping I think shes living in the past still when its too late now. The Jep affair or connection when they talk is a gaining of maturity that Ramona is learning from him. as many songs and pop culture has taught us genders are often attracted to the older opposite sex. for example our societies' infatuation with MILFs (Stacey Dash or Lucy Lu

)  or the crush your lil sister had on one of your boys back in high school. lessons include not crying at Funerals which Jep breaks himself. I think she went to get botox herself in that one scene. She learns from Jep that sex isn't that important as she thought it was and that passion for one another is grander

When that guy told Jep about his wife's passing and that she only loved Jep when Jep said their relationship was decades ago in their 20's I loved the lighting and face makeup in that convo.

Also that Nun was a walking Zombie

my take...

 

[venom lyrix]

Venom, did the rock dudes look anything like the structure on Easter Island?

Not even close

 

[venom lyrix]

Kind of does. I too thought it would focus on the epic flooding and the creation of the ark. I wouldn't mind giving the movie a watch though, even if its for Crowe alone.

Do you mind sharing the name of the film message board you mentioned in one of your other posts?

Joblo

 

[sb]

watched wolf of wall street. great film and highly entertaining. leo killed it and jonah was great as well.

 

[broncos19dm]

Watched Noah last night... Pretty good.

I really enjoyed when they showed the creation of the universe.

It's a safe movie for both religious and non-religious IMO.

 

[Master Zik]

See with movies like that I'd have a cast full of Asians just for some flavor to change it up. Like if we picking religious stories to make movies out of I'd cast a bunch of Columbians for the story of Job

I really have no interest to watch Noah. Crowe hasn't been as big of a draw as much lately for me.

 

[Bend_The_Knee]

Grand Budapest Hotel, anyone seen it yet?

 

[lawdog1]

Grand Budapest Hotel, anyone seen it yet?

Yes. I thought it was excellent. Loved it. Ralph Fiennes was perfect in it. Looking forward to seeing it again soon.

 

[Kimchi Papi]

Nice piece on movies critics. It's a bit long so I put it in spoiler mode. Also Roger Ebert's site is a great movie site for those that don't visit it.

PLEASE, CRITICS, WRITE ABOUT THE FILMMAKING
by Matt Zoller Seitz

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

My colleague Sam Adams runs a weekly survey at CriticWire, in which he poses a question of the week to people who write about film and television. This week's query inspired an especially rich batch of answers.

Q: Jazz critic Ted Gioia recently lodged a complaint that "music criticism has degenerated into lifestyle reporting" because most most critics lack a musical background and theoretical tools. Do movie critics need filmmaking experience or an understanding of film theory to do their jobs?

Gioia's piece, which was published at The Daily Beast, was the op-ed equivalent of a nun rapping inattentive students' knuckles with a ruler. It's mostly an argument in favor of music critics knowing a little bit about the actual process of writing and performing music, and finding a way to work that knowledge into their reviews.

"Imagine, for a moment, football commentators who refuse to explain formations and plays. Or a TV cooking show that never mentions the ingredients," he writes, "or an expert on cars who refuses to look under the hood of an automobile. These examples may sound implausible, perhaps ridiculous. But something comparable is happening in the field of music journalism. One can read through a stack of music magazines and never find any in-depth discussion of music. Technical knowledge of the art form has disappeared from its discourse. In short, music criticism has turned into lifestyle reporting."

Gioia probably goes a bit too far, even if you consider hyperbole a valid rhetorical tool, but not so far that he loses track of a valid point: art is not just about content, and it's not just about the emotions we feel as we contemplate it. Art is also about process. It's about form. It's about expression.

And in much of music criticism, Gioia argues, there's precious little attention paid to any of those things.

"On a few occasions, a reviewer might mention the instruments involved in the making of an album—but usually skipped these apparently tedious details. I couldn’t find any cogent analysis of how these instruments were played. (No, I don’t count 'totally shreds' as cogent analysis.) I didn’t read a single discussion of song structure, harmony, or arrangement techniques. Who knows, perhaps editors have forbidden the discussion of music in articles on musicians. Judging by what I read, they want scandal and spectacle. Certainly the artists who deliver these get the most coverage, and musical talent be damned."

I can't speak to the validity of the writer's observation with regard to music criticism. I stopped reading most music criticism some time ago. But I can tell you that it's absolutely valid when it comes to writing about film and TV.

I told Sam: "I'm sure there'll be a lot of nitpicking over specific aspects of his piece, but his general point seems irrefutable to me: in criticism of every kind there is appallingly little careful consideration of form. I see a lot of writing that describes what a piece of art is about, not so much about how it is about it. As for his insinuation that most of the people writing about music have no idea how to describe music, I'm sure he's right. A good many people don't bother to describe, much less evaluate, filmmaking in film reviews, and in that case there are somewhat concrete visuals that you can grab hold of. Faced with the daunting prospect of describing the success or failure of a rhythm track, horn arrangement or three-part harmony, I'm sure a lot of music writers throw up their hands and reach for meaningless words like 'shredding.'"

I was being diplomatic.

During any given week it's possible to read tens of thousands of words of evaluation and analysis about this show or that movie, in reputable mainstream publications with strict editorial standards and on personal blogs where writers are theoretically free to write about whatever they want, in any manner they choose, without ever coming across one sentence that delves into form in any detail.

If you know me personally—or even virtually—you know how much this pisses me off.

Movies and television are visual art forms, and aural art forms. They are not just about plot, characterization and theme. Analytical writing about movies and TV should incorporate some discussion of the means by which the plot is ad*****d, the characters developed, the themes explored. It should devote some space, some small bit of the word count, to the compositions, the cutting, the music, the decor, the lighting, the overall rhythm and mood of the piece.

Otherwise it's all just book reports or political op-eds that happen to be about film and TV. It's literary criticism about visual media. It's only achieving half of its potential, if that. And it's doing nothing to help a viewer understand how a work evokes particular feelings in them as they watch it.

Form is not just an academic side dish to the main course of content. We critics of film and TV have a duty to help viewers understand how form and and content interact, and how content is expressed through form. The film or TV critic who refuses to write about form in any serious way abdicates that duty, and abets visual illiteracy.

It is not necessary for a critic of film or television to have created a work of film or television. But it's never a bad idea to know a little bitty eensy teensy bit about how film and television are made.

I'm not talking about how film and television deals are made: who's hired, who's fired, which show gets green-lit or canceled.

I mean nuts and bolts: where the camera goes, and why it goes there. Why a scene included a lot of over-the-shoulder shots of a character speaking, even though the angle prevents you from seeing their lips moving. Why a particular scene was played entirely in closeup, or entirely in long shot.
Basic stuff.

You don't have to go out and live it. You can read about it. You can ask professionals about it. But you should learn it, and know it and, in your writing, show evidence of learning and knowing it.

We have several successive generations of film watchers—some of whom consume TV and movies voraciously and have surprisingly wide-ranging tastes—who don't know how to interpret a shot, or how to think about what the size or position of characters in a frame might tell us about the story's attitude toward those characters. That's a problem.

We have critics and viewers who can agree that a particular episode of a particular show ended in a "shocking" or "unsettling" way, but they don't think about the role that, say, a jaggedly timed cut to black or atonal music cue might have played in provoking that reaction. That's a problem.

We have critics who will praise a particular pop song as being the "perfect" accompaniment to a particular montage in a Scorsese movie or an episode of "Mad Men," but then skip merrily along after that, never elucidating why the song was perfect: because of the tempo? The lyrics? The instrumentation? The way the strings complemented the swooping camera?

If you don't fit the above description, congratulations on not being part of the problem; if your back was up, you can return it to its customary position of repose.
Otherwise, read on.

I refuse to accept the argument that if your writing focuses on, say, issues of politics—race, class, gender, representation in general—then there's no urgent need to comment directly on form.

That's an evasion of the film and TV critic's duty, and an excuse for not doing something because it's just a little bit harder than whatever you're used to.
Form is the means by which content is expressed. Don't shortchange it for reasons of personal convenience.

Refuse to write about form and you might refuse to engage with the heart of a work. The heart of a film, the heart of a TV episode, might be contained in an image or a cut.

Don't believe me? Just ask David Chase. Or Stanley Kubrick. Or this year's Best Picture winner, Steve McQueen.

In "12 Years a Slave" there's a marvelous crane shot that starts looking through the window of a jail cell where the hero has been chained, then rises slowly up, over the rooftop, to reveal the city skyline, and in the background, the U.S. Capitol. This shot is saying something, and it's saying it with images: the horror of slavery unfolded in the shadow of the very institution that gave America the laws she supposedly held dear. (And here's a lovely and chilling grace note that a critic friend just pointed out to me: in the shot, the Capitol dome is unfinished.)

This is not, to put it mildly, a difficult shot for viewers to decode. But it's one of many crucial ones in "12 Years a Slave." I have yet to encounter any review in a mainstream publication that mentioned it, or that mentioned the design of any shot or sequence in that intricately constructed, powerfully visual movie, save for the image of the hero seeming to look beseechingly at the viewer.

But then, one almost never encounters sustained discussion of, or even vague allusion to, filmmaking itself in most film and TV criticism.

It's as if the writers, or their editors, are utterly terrified that the reader will think them snooty if they mention the images of which the film is comprised.

We see adjectives such as "visceral" or "gritty" or "shaky" or "elegant" thrown around like handfuls of confetti, with no elaboration as to why a particular scene or shot or moment earned those adjectives. We read film reviews which state that the film was "well-shot" or "beautifully shot" but never go further than that.

When I complain about the short-shrifting of form by movie and TV critics, I often get defensive responses: "Well, they only gave me 500 words." Or "The filmmaking was undistinguished, that's why I didn't say anything about it." Or "The editor wanted me to concentrate on the plot and characterizations and performances because, well, you know, we're mainstream." Or, "I'd love to write about the images, but I'm not a visual person, so that's not really my area."

Bull.

If you only have ten sentences to play with, set aside one sentence to make an observation about some aspect of the filmmaking. Otherwise you're not contributing to visual literacy. You're not helping.

Lack of space is no excuse.

Lack of editorial endorsement is no excuse.

Lack of knowledge of composition, editing or any other aspect of filmmaking is no excuse; there are dozens of reputable books designed to teach the rudiments of film form to anyone who can read English, most of them are written by David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson, and you can buy one of them for the cost of a decent restaurant meal.

Write about form. A little bit. Not all the time. Just whenever you see an opening; whenever you think it might make sense, and call attention to the fact that we don't just mysteriously, magically feel things while we're watching movies and TV shows: that the filmmaking is what made us feel those things.

The decision to get close to an actor's face as opposed to hanging far back. The decision to let an intense confession unfold without music. The decision to light a brown-skinned actor so that his facial features are swallowed up, while his white costars' faces are etched in loving detail. The decision to cut away from an act of violence, or to move in tight, or to show it again and again from different angles.

These things matter.

They matter more than most viewers realize, and it's our job as critics to help them realize it.

You owe it to your readers to write about form. You owe it to yourself to write about form. You owe it to the filmmakers to write about form.

Films and TV shows are made by filmmakers.

Write about the filmmaking.

http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/please-critics-write-about-the-filmmaking

 

[macbk]

Watched Side Effects for the first time. Hadn't even heard of it till my girl put it on; pretty good thriller. Jude Law was great, as was Rooney Mara. Didn't realize it was a Soderbergh film either.

 

[nazdrowie]

Review: Snowpiercer

---

Rating: B

watched it last night...agreed with this assessment...

tilda swinton was great

 

[Kimchi Papi]

Watched Side Effects for the first time. Hadn't even heard of it till my girl put it on; pretty good thriller. Jude Law was great, as was Rooney Mara. Didn't realize it was a Soderbergh film either.

I thought it was a solid movie too. Nice little twist at the end. I really like the diverse movies Soderbergh has done. I haven't necessarily liked every flick he's done but he's done different types of subject matter. He gets props for marrying Jules Asner too.