Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 13, 2017, 04:24:05 AM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Other/Miscellaneous
| |-+  Off-Topic Discussion (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  Rate The Last Movie You Saw
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 938 939 [940] 941 942 ... 1169 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Rate The Last Movie You Saw  (Read 1834168 times)
cigar joe
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12780


easy come easy go


View Profile
« Reply #14085 on: October 15, 2014, 11:28:42 AM »

That's where we disagree. The pitch isn't cinematic AT ALL but the execution is extremely cinematic IMHO. That is why other film scripted by Sorkin look like made for TV with great dialogues but this one doesn't.

Some of the "trial" scenes and a few of the Winkelvoss only sequences could be made for TV. Same for the ending, I'll give you that. However: the opening break up scene is only topped by Year Of The Dragon break up scene. The first coding scene (creation of Facematch) is unrivaled and features Peckinpah level parallel montage. The "seanathon" sequence is cinema at its best. Of course the rowing scene is already cult (not sure how this one will age). And I could go on and on. To make it simple: the level of perfection and control of most of the film has nothing to do with TV and has rarely been witnessed in theater. Technical perfection (which includes acting) isn't sufficient to make a great film, but it's far more that enough to be pretty far from any made for TV flicks.

I think we have two definitions of cinematic, maybe I'm using the wrong word. I want to see beautiful scenery or  intricate cityscapes, cool camera angles and perspectives, interesting action I didn't see that, I saw mostly talking heads sitting around uninteresting sets. The sculling scene was the closest.

I thing you are using cinematic in a technical sense.

« Last Edit: October 15, 2014, 11:37:02 AM by cigar joe » Logged

"When you feel that rope tighten on your neck you can feel the devil bite your ass"!
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Online Online

Posts: 5114


Lonesome Billy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14086 on: October 15, 2014, 11:58:54 AM »

No we're talking about the same thing. That's why that film directed by anyone else than Fincher and a few others (PTA, Scorsese...) would have been utterly uncinematic. But the way they did it made it incredibly cinematic. It's like Fight Club: when you read the book you think it's uncinematic, impossible to adapt. When you watch the film it's hard to believe it was a book first.
Fincher and his team did an incredible work in the Social Network to transform offices into beautiful scenery (also, they get out of the offices and university rooms as much as they can) and edit dialogue and fucking CODING scenes like action sequences. Once again, the creation of Facematch, which consist of a night of coding, is an incredible 100% cinematic sequence. Although that's hard to believe Smiley
Now that's a matter of opinion but to me the camera angles are among the best of the decade even if they're not there for people to notice (unlike, say, Fight Club and other early Fincher work).

I get your point though. It's exactly what I feared BEFORE I watched the movie.

« Last Edit: October 15, 2014, 12:00:02 PM by noodles_leone » Logged


New music video: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE https://youtu.be/p968oyMo5B0
www.ThibautOskian.com
cigar joe
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12780


easy come easy go


View Profile
« Reply #14087 on: October 15, 2014, 12:11:17 PM »

No we're talking about the same thing. That's why that film directed by anyone else than Fincher and a few others (PTA, Scorsese...) would have been utterly uncinematic. But the way they did it made it incredibly cinematic. It's like Fight Club: when you read the book you think it's uncinematic, impossible to adapt. When you watch the film it's hard to believe it was a book first.

I don't like Fight Club either, a pretty stupid story.

Quote
Fincher and his team did an incredible work in the Social Network to transform offices into beautiful scenery (also, they get out of the offices and university rooms as much as they can) and edit dialogue and fucking CODING scenes like action sequences. Once again, the creation of Facematch, which consist of a night of coding, is an incredible 100% cinematic sequence. Although that's hard to believe Smiley
Now that's a matter of opinion but to me the camera angles are among the best of the decade even if they're not there for people to notice (unlike, say, Fight Club and other early Fincher work).

I get your point though. It's exactly what I feared BEFORE I watched the movie.

Different strokes for different folks, I don't get thrills out of offices transformed into beautiful scenery or coding as action, or most CGI for that matter.

Logged

"When you feel that rope tighten on your neck you can feel the devil bite your ass"!
PowerRR
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3008


View Profile
« Reply #14088 on: October 15, 2014, 12:50:35 PM »

Maps to the Stars - 7/10
Fun, weird, good characters, enjoyable, whatever. Just watch The Player or Birdman or Mulholland Drive instead or something.

Hunger Games: Catching Fire - 8/10
About 1000x better than the shit first installment, and other than some definite mediocre performance and some legitimately laugh-out-loud lines of dialogue, it's really impressive for a young adult novel movie. Even the "games" segment, an inevitable rehash from the first, takes up less than 1/4 of the 2+hour running time and is done much more coherently and tensely than the first. A pretty solid last appearance from PSH before he died (not counting his posthumous roles). a quick moving 2 hours with some not-so-bad melodrama and decent PG 13 action. a surprised thumbs up.

The Rover - 7/10
Technically impressive. The direction, cinematography, use of music, tension build-up, acting, yadda yadda yadda. Problem is it just falls right into the overdone category of anti/modern/pseudo-westerns of the past few years...No Country for Old Men...Ain't Them Bodies Saints... The Proposition.... even touches of Drive. It's good but a big yawn on the the premise, atmosphere and style. I feel like Hunger Games differs itself more from Hollywood than the Rover does from the indie-western.

« Last Edit: October 15, 2014, 12:52:44 PM by PowerRR » Logged
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Online Online

Posts: 5114


Lonesome Billy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14089 on: October 15, 2014, 01:29:28 PM »

I don't like Fight Club either, a pretty stupid story.

I get that but that's not my point: you cannot get much more cinematic than Fight Club.

Logged


New music video: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE https://youtu.be/p968oyMo5B0
www.ThibautOskian.com
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13703

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #14090 on: October 15, 2014, 03:11:20 PM »

The Rover - 7/10
Technically impressive. The direction, cinematography, use of music, tension build-up, acting, yadda yadda yadda. Problem is it just falls right into the overdone category of anti/modern/pseudo-westerns of the past few years...No Country for Old Men...Ain't Them Bodies Saints... The Proposition.... even touches of Drive. It's good but a big yawn on the the premise, atmosphere and style. I feel like Hunger Games differs itself more from Hollywood than the Rover does from the indie-western.
You obviously missed all the GBU references. Oh well, you're not the sharpest viewer.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for being such an annoying Melville fanboy.
PowerRR
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3008


View Profile
« Reply #14091 on: October 15, 2014, 04:14:37 PM »

You obviously missed all the GBU references. Oh well, you're not the sharpest viewer.
Lol, I caught on to the Leone style and homages right from the opening shots. As the movie continues, it gets duller.

Logged
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14092 on: October 15, 2014, 04:58:22 PM »

Opera - 5/10 - Some gruesome images and neat murders, but the story's lazy even by Dario Argento standards and it grows tedious pretty quick.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
PowerRR
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3008


View Profile
« Reply #14093 on: October 15, 2014, 09:35:52 PM »

Me, Myself & Irene - 8.5/10

Logged
moviesceleton
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3928


The glance that makes holes in the silver screen


View Profile
« Reply #14094 on: October 16, 2014, 03:35:42 AM »

The Rover - 7/10
Technically impressive. The direction, cinematography, use of music, tension build-up, acting, yadda yadda yadda. Problem is it just falls right into the overdone category of anti/modern/pseudo-westerns of the past few years...No Country for Old Men...Ain't Them Bodies Saints... The Proposition.... even touches of Drive. It's good but a big yawn on the the premise, atmosphere and style. I feel like Hunger Games differs itself more from Hollywood than the Rover does from the indie-western.
I gave it a 6/10. Technically impressive, indeed. I believed in the world and I was ready to give myself to the movie completely. But walking out of the theater I kept asking myself: "So what? What's the big deal?" I didn't get anything from it apart from two hours of "entertainment". (And entertainment isn't a bad thing, but this film was clearly trying to convince me that it was something more than just entertainment.) I mean, what was the ending about, really? It left me cold. I saw just a story about tough/violent/remorseless men in a dog-eat-dog world. Regardless some "difficult moral dilemmas", the characters turned out rather one dimensional. To me they didn't seem to behave like real people behave. And if I can't identify with the characters, I'm expecting at least some sort of allegory or something. Well, couldn't find that either.

But I've also seen some good movies lately:

Winter Sleep (2014) - 9/10
"Three hours of Bergmanesque dialogue-heavy Turkish drama." Way to pitch a film, right?

People on Sunday (1930) - 9/10
Four young Berliners spend the Sunday on the beach and in the forest having fun and screwing around. Done on real locations with amateur actors and rather free style camera work. All this 25 years before the nouvelle vague. Surprisingly, directed by Robert (and Kurt) Siodmak. Not so surprisingly, written by Billy Wilder.

Diary of a Country Priest (1951) - 8/10

Paisą (1946) - 9/10

Logged

"Once Upon a Time in America gets ten-minute ovation at Cannes"
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13703

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #14095 on: October 16, 2014, 05:49:02 AM »

I gave it a 6/10. Technically impressive, indeed. I believed in the world and I was ready to give myself to the movie completely. But walking out of the theater I kept asking myself: "So what? What's the big deal?" I didn't get anything from it apart from two hours of "entertainment". (And entertainment isn't a bad thing, but this film was clearly trying to convince me that it was something more than just entertainment.) I mean, what was the ending about, really? It left me cold. I saw just a story about tough/violent/remorseless men in a dog-eat-dog world. Regardless some "difficult moral dilemmas", the characters turned out rather one dimensional. To me they didn't seem to behave like real people behave. And if I can't identify with the characters, I'm expecting at least some sort of allegory or something. Well, couldn't find that either.

The final scene makes a statement, a rather simple one. What I most enjoyed about it was how it cast an earlier scene--the one at the woman doctor's kennel--in a new light. That scene had been rather mysterious when presented, it seemed to mean something, but it was unclear what. At the end that scene suddenly made sense. It wasn't anything profound, but it was . . . interesting.

The characters are one dimensional, sure, but that's the nature of their world. If you spend all of your time surviving, you are, by definition, one dimensional. No, these characters aren't like anyone I know either, but I don't live in that world. If I did . . . I'd probably be just like those guys (except I'd be taking fewer chances).

I found the film very entertaining. I left the theater fist-pumping the air, ready to take on the apocalypse when it comes. And anyone trying to sneak into my Culture Bunker is gonna get blasted.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for being such an annoying Melville fanboy.
PowerRR
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3008


View Profile
« Reply #14096 on: October 16, 2014, 04:06:49 PM »

the fault in our stars - 3
i think im gonna throw up

Logged
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13703

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #14097 on: October 17, 2014, 06:15:27 AM »

Fury (2014) - 4/10. Very disappointing. Brad Pitt, on loan from the Inglourious Basterds (it would appear) commands a tank (marked with the word "Fury" on its barrel) fighting krauts in the final days of WWII. Of course, historical accuracy is gonna go right out the door. Of course, actual military procedures are gonna be non-existent. But you'd at least think there'd be plenty of action. There is some--we get three big set pieces--but there's a lot of down time among the excitement. And what do we do with all those extra minutes? Mostly we get to see how the tank crew operates as a dysfunctional family. There's the Bible-quoting nut-job; the hillbilly nut-job; the Latino nut-job (oooo, diversity!); the newbie (trained as a Clerk/Typist but unaccountably detailed to tank duty--uh huh--he's not only going to be initiated into the realities of combat--the horror! the horror!--he's also gonna act as the audience's surrogate--stop me if you've heard this one before). Pitt has to be the Daddy to them all, holding them together so they can continue the mission(s). In the final sequence the tank rolls over a landmine and throws a tread. Time for the boys to make a last stand! (in April of '45--oh, the irony!)The plan Pitt comes up with to keep the tank relevant--the only home the boys have ever known!--is so ludicrous as to defy belief. These guys have been together since Africa, surviving one battle after another, and they've never learned how to properly stage an ambush? Add to the bad plotting the fact that the film is visually dull (few wide shots during the final battle; lots of TV-like setups) and the soundtrack is very lame. I'm so glad this was selected for the closing spot at this year's London Film Festival.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for being such an annoying Melville fanboy.
Cusser
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1562


Remember, I always see the job through !


View Profile
« Reply #14098 on: October 17, 2014, 07:41:47 AM »

Gravity, a few days ago.  Over-rated.  Space/antigravity effects were good, have no idea how they do those.

Logged
PowerRR
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3008


View Profile
« Reply #14099 on: October 17, 2014, 07:43:01 AM »

Fury (2014) - 4/10. Very disappointing. Brad Pitt, on loan from the Inglourious Basterds (it would appear) commands a tank (marked with the word "Fury" on its barrel) fighting krauts in the final days of WWII. Of course, historical accuracy is gonna go right out the door. Of course, actual military procedures are gonna be non-existent. But you'd at least think there'd be plenty of action. There is some--we get three big set pieces--but there's a lot of down time among the excitement. And what do we do with all those extra minutes? Mostly we get to see how the tank crew operates as a dysfunctional family. There's the Bible-quoting nut-job; the hillbilly nut-job; the Latino nut-job (oooo, diversity!); the newbie (trained as a Clerk/Typist but unaccountably detailed to tank duty--uh huh--he's not only going to be initiated into the realities of combat--the horror! the horror!--he's also gonna act as the audience's surrogate--stop me if you've heard this one before). Pitt has to be the Daddy to them all, holding them together so they can continue the mission(s). In the final sequence the tank rolls over a landmine and throws a tread. Time for the boys to make a last stand! (in April of '45--oh, the irony!)The plan Pitt comes up with to keep the tank relevant--the only home the boys have ever known!--is so ludicrous as to defy belief. These guys have been together since Africa, surviving one battle after another, and they've never learned how to properly stage an ambush? Add to the bad plotting the fact that the film is visually dull (few wide shots during the final battle; lots of TV-like setups) and the soundtrack is very lame. I'm so glad this was selected for the closing spot at this year's London Film Festival.
Sounds horrible, think i'm seeing it with 'pa next week. Hopefully I completely disagree with you like I do with a lot of movies... but this sounds like cliche-ridden shit.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 938 939 [940] 941 942 ... 1169 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.048 seconds with 20 queries.