|
I didn't find the revenant pretentious at all. I went in expecting an HD version of the badass mountain man movies of the seventies, highlighting beautiful American landscapes, and that's exactly what it was.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
The trailer for that movie made it look like wilderness survival "porn" for lack of a better term. I got my fill of that crap playing the Tomb Raider reboot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
notZaar posted:The trailer for that movie made it look like wilderness survival "porn" for lack of a better term. I got my fill of that crap playing the Tomb Raider reboot. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
For UK goons who haven't seen Barry Lyndon: it's on TMC (that free film channel you don't watch on Sky) at 3pm this Sunday.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
this is funny because sofia coppola does it in marie antoinette
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Revenant was cool, kinda long though.drguildo posted:Yeah I'm sure they're totally intentional as opposed to poo poo from the Goofs section of IMDb. when it's some random fuckoff director, yeah they're goofs. when it's goddamn Stanley Kubrick who makes you do 100+ takes to get a scene exactly goddamn right, it's intentional this is like when people roll their eyes at literary analysis going 'that word there is just coincidence' as if the poet/author didn't deliberately pick it over others the dude is famous for using cinematography (camera angles, lighting, etc) to enhance the theme of his movies why would you think cinematographic effects and techniques employed are just coincidental?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Kubrick had awesome taste in movies: https://mubi.com/lists/stanley-kubricks-favorite-films
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Carmant posted:Umm.. it was pretty good actually It was okay
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Looking forward to Barry L. Eyes Wide Shut didn't do it for me. Visually Interesting but Cruises character was hard to like or be sympathetic towards. The plot ambled along. Ill give it another go one day still. His other films are masterpieces imo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Sten Freak posted:Looking forward to Barry L. i hated eyes wide shut the first time i saw it. i watched it again recently after like 8 years and i think a lot more highly of it now. its still not his best work but i think its one of his weirdest. if for nothing else, watch it for his use of lighting and color and saturation     this movie was not filmed like other movies, in a technical sense
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
The man was a genius at lighting
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Code Jockey posted:The man was a genius at lighting He always had genius cinematographers. John Alton's work on Clockwork, Lyndon, The Shining, and Full Metal Jacket is awe inspiring. He also worked with Lucien Ballard, Russell Metty, Oswald Morris, and Geoffrey Look up their names. Metty shot all of Douglas Sirk's 50s films and Touch of Evil. Morris shot Fiddler on the Roof. Unsworth shot Superman '78. Larry Smith shot Eyes Wide Shut, as well as Only God Forgives.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:this is like when people roll their eyes at literary analysis going 'that word there is just coincidence' as if the poet/author didn't deliberately pick it over others Not really. Words are always chosen, it's just a question of why. Goofs by definition are unintentional. quote:the dude is famous for using cinematography (camera angles, lighting, etc) to enhance the theme of his movies why would you think cinematographic effects and techniques employed are just coincidental? Because Oscar's razor, I guess. Is there any actual evidence it was intentional or is it just assumed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
My favorite Kubrick is Eraserhead
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
I also like the one with Kramer
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:this is like when people roll their eyes at literary analysis going 'that word there is just coincidence' as if the poet/author didn't deliberately pick it over others this doesnt have much to do with kubrick but as an english degree haver (lol) i can say with certainty that most words in novels or other long-form works are not that specific. poets are obviously different and every word is chosen very carefully. but theres no way that faulkner chose every word in absalom absalom specifically, and i love faulkner the famous example of this is the newer jewish criticism of shylock in the merchant of venice. i can say with some serious certainty that shakespeare did not give one poo poo about jewish causes. i dont put a lot of stock in death of the author but thats a solid example of it Blue Raider fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Aug 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
drguildo posted:Not really. Words are always chosen, it's just a question of why. Goofs by definition are unintentional. Occam's Razor, but yes, you won't find many accidentally beautiful shots in Kubrick's work. The first half of Full Metal Jacket is cold and impersonal; it dehumanizes it's subjects while showing them being torn down and built up - the shots of boot camp are precise and geometric, and very cold. Even in the daylight during training sequences the characters are in perfect order being screamed at to be better. (Apart from Pyle.) Then in the second half, you see many instances of that perfect order being broken down, both thematic and technical. You see the perfect order of troops marching behind the tank being hit randomly by shrapnel, but you also see the camera techniques change entirely: now the camera moves erratically, while characters encounter situations you've never seen them prepare for. None of this is accidental. Kubrick knows his poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Next time someone's taking screenshots they should make sure to get this one. It seems significant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Glad to see all the love for Barry Lyndon. I always thought it was great, but all my friends hated it. Thank you thread for confirming that they're a bunch of know nothings with poo poo taste in movies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Tumble posted:Occam's Razor I loving hate autocorrect so much. The irony of it loving me in the rear end while discussing the careful choosing of words is not lost on me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Spunky Psycho Ho posted:Paths of Glory is one of the only anti-war films that doesn't glorify it accidentally My favorite part of paths of glory is when will Ferrell scissors with Napoleon dynamite
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Kubrick wasn't immune to goofs (there's a shadow of the helicopter they're filming from in the opening shot of the shining), but most of what would be considered goofs on some direct to dvd shitfest are most certainly intentional which includes probably all of the more obvious continuity "errors" (furniture moving, typewriter changing color), the impossible geometry of the overlook hotel etc
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 11:56
|
|
|
Dave Concepcion posted:Kubrick wasn't immune to goofs (there's a shadow of the helicopter they're filming from in the opening shot of the shining), but most of what would be considered goofs on some direct to dvd shitfest are most certainly intentional which includes probably all of the more obvious continuity "errors" (furniture moving, typewriter changing color), the impossible geometry of the overlook hotel etc The shadow isn't visible if The Shining is in the theatrical 1.85:1 format. You also see the effects rig in Dr Strangelove for the big bomb riding scene when you don't see it in widescreen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
drguildo posted:Because Oscar's razor, I guess. Is there any actual evidence it was intentional or is it just assumed? I think Occam's Razor would actually side with Kubrick doing it intentionally in this case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:The shadow isn't visible if The Shining is in the theatrical 1.85:1 format. huh had no idea, cool
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
Watched Barry Lyndon for the first time last night. I already want to see it again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
I watched a bit while getting screen caps. The robber scene is one of the funniest bits Kubrick ever did in a film. I hope if I ever get mugged, it's by someone as polite.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Barry Lyndon sounds like a faggy movie with powdered wigs and poo poo (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Don Tacorleone posted:Barry Lyndon sounds like a faggy movie with powdered wigs and poo poo There are guns and explosions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Don Tacorleone posted:Barry Lyndon sounds like a faggy movie with powdered wigs and poo poo This but really good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
drguildo posted:Yeah I'm sure they're totally intentional as opposed to poo poo from the Goofs section of IMDb. These are things that are built into the set, down to the blueprints. There is no possible way they couldn't have been intentional but thanks for proving yourself to be a mental infant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:I watched a bit while getting screen caps. The first time I watched Barry Lyndon I was kind of caught up with how technically beautiful it is, and how epic the plot was. With repeat viewings though, you start to see just how funny it is. The scenes in the beginning with his cousin making Barry fish for a ribbon down her shirt, the extremely polite robber you mentioned, the fight at the military camp... Barry Lyndon is a very entertaining movie. Edit - and as for The Shining, I think the only goof is the helicopter shadow, the impossible layout and "continuity errors" were probably intentional, Kubrick was a nutjob when it came to documenting those kinds of things - he was notorious for overplanning sets and meticulously photographing them. Dude was anal. Tumble fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Aug 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
It's way better than the novel it's based on, too
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:It's way better than the novel it's based on, too funny how that works with kubrick
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Junk posted:These are things that are built into the set, down to the blueprints. There is no possible way they couldn't have been intentional but thanks for proving yourself to be a mental infant. Wow rude. Excuse me for not examining the set blueprints for movies I watch. Just reading this long list of completely intentional stuff. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
For the record I think The Shining is an excellent movie and Stanley Kubrick was a great director. Just playing devil's advocate here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
drguildo posted:Wow rude. Excuse me for not examining the set blueprints for movies I watch. Pretty much all of the continuity errors are intentional. There's a documentary where he deliberately moves noticeable items in between takes/retakes. The great thing about that movie is that even the unintentional mistakes add to the deliberate weirdness feeling to it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Viruswithshoes posted:Pretty much all of the continuity errors are intentional. There's a documentary where he deliberately moves noticeable items in between takes/retakes. The great thing about that movie is that even the unintentional mistakes add to the deliberate weirdness feeling to it. A lot of them are pointless. Who gives a gently caress if a scarf is 90 degrees in one shot and 70 degrees in the following one? Kubrick was a perfectionist, but even he'd say that's dumb to point out. I read one interview by Peter Greenaway where he said "continuity is boring". Even obvious stuff like the two typewriters. I assumed he switched to one at the hotel to get over his writer's block. I just think it's stupid to think that Kubrick wouldn't have noticed something like that. And it's clear the missing cord on the TV in The Shining is deliberate. It gives a subliminal creepiness to the shot. That's why I think the symmetry and use of the steadicam works in The Shining. All the movement is so smooth and calculated. The lighting looks perfectly natural. It gives this feeling of unease, sort of the same way some mo-cap has this creepy look because it's too real.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
one of the best parts about the shining is how, when you really pay attention to it, the interiors of the hotel do not match the exterior at all. there is no way that those massive, massive rooms could fit in that structure, never mind the hallways ebert, for all his faults, nails the shining down pretty drat hard http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-shining-1980
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:40
|
|