|
Really excited to see Mud. I'm living in France at this moment and the release dates of some movies are pretty random. They'll get the standard blockbusters (i.e. Iron man 3) just like everyone else but otherwise it can be really behind release dates in the US/UK. Thankfully, Cannes gives me the chance to see more artistic films either earlier or at least if not at the same time. The past few years have seen a wealth of great movies based in the Rural United States such as, but not limited to: Beasts of the Southern Wild, Take Shelter, Killer Joe, The Place Beyond the Pines, and now, I hope, Mud. Furthermore, they seem to take place in the South if not the midwest. Any reason for this?
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
What I could say for sure is that at least internationally the American South is one of the most marketable aspects of the United States, at least in the sense that it's well-known. Over here it seems people's general knowledge of the States comes down to New York, San Francisco/L.A., and the Rural/South. The last of those settings is in many ways the most interesting for non-Americans since it encapsulates what they think the true American is like/lives. At the very least these films are more readily viewed here in hopes to discover some aspect of the American psyche.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Don't think I mentioned it but I really do look forward to reading your weekly round-up. Best honest opinions to be found on the web concerning movies. Also, just got back from seeing Mud and I thought it was terrific. It's been a very nostalgic last 3 films for me what with The Place Beyond the Pines, Jurassic Park, and Mud. The first's scenery just reminded me so much of my native Connecticut that it made want to leave for it right away. Jurassic Park was much better than I remembered (read scarier) and its special effects hold up to today's standards. Lastly, though and most freshly, Mud made me think about being a teenager again. It wasn't touched upon too much in the review by Nichol's really represented the nature of a best friend. I remember my best friend and I at that time getting into plenty of silly poo poo and exploring our neighborhood and swamp marshes in way like Ellis and Neck. Maybe I've been unlucky but those type of friendships don't quite last into adulthood, or maybe we just go on less adventures the older we get. At any rate, these last 3 movies have made me want to go home and be a teenager again, how's that for good film-making?
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
CopywrightMMXI posted:Question for Professor Clumsy regarding The Purge: If all crime is legal, do they explain why the intruders are wearing masks? Is it central to the plot to conceal their identities? What? Do you want to be an unstylish criminal?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Vargo posted:It's super-stupid, but I'll spoiler tag it anyway: Her name is Frances Hawthorne or Halloway or something like that. In the last scene of the movie, when Frances finally grows up and starts to get her poo poo together, she finally gets a steady job and her own apartment. She begins to write out her name tag for the mailbox, then discovers that the only amount that will fit in the mailbox slot is "Frances Ha." The last shot of the movie is the mailbox with Francis Ha written on it and the credits roll and ugggggghhhhh.... That's horrible. I'll be skipping this one for sure. However, cannot wait to see the Iceman. Michael Shannon is the best. Loved him in Mud.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
I've seen the first two Before and I really liked Jesse/Ethan Hawke. I may or may not watch the new one depending if my girlfriend can convince me to go. The thing is as much like Jesse/Ethan Hawke and everything I simply CANNOT stand Julie Delpy/Celine. Her neuroses generally just grates on my nerves. Mind you this holds true for any movie Delpy's I've seen such as her Two Days... series and Le Skylab. I haven't seen many of her movies for that very reason but she just gets on my nerves. I mean I guess it's good character work if she's created someone that genuinely bothers me but that's the very reason I don't want to spend time watching her on screen, much like I tend to avoid people I dislike in real life.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Just saw Bling Ring and I quite liked it. The best Sofia Coppola since Lost in Translation (which is one of my favorite movies) for sure. While I agree on Vargo's point on Emma Watson, and clearly Coppola thought the same since the last shot is of her, I did not think that Watson quite pulled off the valley girl accent and occasionally I felt I was hearing her English accent come out. It wasn't a problem but it was a bit distracting. It's a great film to watch alongside Springbreakers due to similar themes and presentations. Also the shot mentioned by Vargo is AMAZING. I could watch that scene over and over on a gif if possible. The accompanying sound effects (police sirens, helicopters, barking dogs, and howling coyotes) were perfect.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
I was wondering how A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III was advertised in the States? It's coming out in about a week (if it hasn't already) in France and they're playing up the Bill Murray/Jason Schwartzman angle pretty hard and pretty much trying to advertise it as a pseudo Wes Anderson film (whose a favorite around here). Also was finally dragged out to see Frances Ha by some friends. I agreed with the review wholeheartedly about the movie being about insufferable people doing pointless things, but what was most interesting was that the Americans pretty much panned it while the Europeans really liked it. The general consensus boiled down to the fact that since the Americans present (all coming from New England) had grown up with people like that, it had hit too close to home and reminded them of actual insufferable people. Anyway, it was interesting to see opinions divided like that by cultural differences.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:It wasn't really advertised in the US at all. They ran one trailer for it at my local indie theater, and the tone was essentially "Everyone hates Charlie Sheen", which is pretty much the film in a nutshell. I figured the scheme would involved Charlie Sheen a bit more stateside. I don't think anyone actually knows who he is here.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Looking forward to seeing Magic Magic when it comes out in France next week. We've been pining for a good horror/thriller and that seems right up our alley; Michael Cera just makes it better having just finished the 4th season of Arrested Development.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
Oh that's fine. That's perfectly fine. Since I had on planned on seeing it after the first few paragraphs of the article I never finished it so I'm not sure what was said in the rest. The beginning intrigued me enough. Trailer's pretty good too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
You're Next was great. Not exactly what I'd expected but just a nicely made fun movie. Great music, and I quite liked the many allusions it made to previous horror movies. Cannot stop listening to Looking for the Magic.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:http://www.avclub.com/article/the-best-films-of-2013-200655 Ugh you have no idea how popular that movie is here. It portrays twee New York as foreigners want it to be, in the way Midnight in Paris did romantic Paris for everyone who doesn't live there. Being from Connecticut and knowing far too many people like the titular heroine made it really hard to like that movie.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2013 12:27
|
|
|
Vargo posted:I am apparently very much in the minority with hating Frances Ha, literally every other critic seemed to adore that pretentious pile, it even went straight into the Criterion collection. What did ypur other fellows think of it again?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Just saw La Vie d'Adèle despite it being out for about 3 months in France (I was busy/lazy.) It's terrific. The acting. OH MAN, the acting. The protagonist steals the show obviously rightfully deserves every acting award ever but that's just me. Duly agree on the sex scenes. I guess they prove passion? But they were unnecessarily long in what is an otherwise wonderfully edited movie. For a film that pushes 3 hours I don't know how they couldn't pare those down. I remember there was some controversy after Cannes (it won the Palme D'Or) because people were unsure it'd get a commercial release due to the sex scenes. I think they did end up taking some out, but I'm pretty sure the rest wouldn't have been missed. If anything they were kept to honor the grueling poo poo the actresses had to deal with while making them. I bet they'd of been pissed to see all that effort go down the drain. I'm going to read the graphic novel soon, seeing as a friend has a copy, and while I planned on reading it initially I'm looking forward to see the contrast between what comes down to two different visual mediums. Off-hand there was a trailer for a German (?) movie about gay priest, I think... anyway it seems it was nominated for the Golden Bear Award(s) of the Berlin Film Festival and the trailer called said award a 'Teddy'. Is that a thing? Is the Berlin Film Festival calling the Golden Bear a "Teddy" to compete with the Oscar or something? Cause that's lame.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised if the title was changed slightly to help promote the graphic novel overseas or something. And honestly the overlong and gratuitous sex scenes of the movie are the only bad point I can think of. I thought it represented lesbians and their relationships just fine especially since it showed them having a relationship just as anyone else would. That's a problem a lot of movies have when representing gay relationships. They seem to think that because they're gay they have to do something different but the fact is that both gay and straight relationships function in the same way. The movie did a nice job handling the respective meet the in-laws dinner where the tension arose even more from the working class versus upper class contrast between Adèle's family and Emma's family. That type of struggle is even more relevant in general relationships and I felt was the biggest problem in the relationship between the two women, since it is that very struggle that leads to the end, regardless of Adèle's own struggle with coming out, which all told is only briefly touched upon in the film I felt. Some Guy TT posted:I'm curious Vargo (and anyone else who's seen both films), what makes Frances Ha fundamentally different from Inside Llewyn Davis? I'm not a huge Coen brothers fan- I mean I like their movies but I don't nerd gush about them, so it seemed to me like the main difference between the two is that Inside Llewyn Davis is better made and more self-aware, which to me honestly isn't much of an endorsement on its own. Nebraska sounded like a much better movie to me simply on the grounds that its characters didn't sound as pretentious. I really liked Inside Llewyn Davis and it reminded me in no small way of A Serious Man. Both are very bleak in different ways. Llewyn Davis is better made and more self-aware and that's what surely helps it. Davis is a unlikeable but very clearly human. He has his good points and his bad ones and I felt as an audience member that I could get what was happening with him and sympathize at times. But since the film itself doesn't take sides and remains quite neutral in the matter, it makes it easier to recognize when he's hosed up. That was my biggest problem with Frances Ha, it's about an unlikeable person but the film itself tries so hard to make you like her and celebrates her success that she in no way deserves. Perhaps that's why it's the perfect hipster movie because it's so damned "ironic"? Unlike Frances, Llewyn Davis doesn't succeed despite trying and in fact keeps getting shat upon, again very much like A Serious Man. It also had a great supporting cast of flawed characters presented as such unlike, the cast of paper thin caricatures that Frances Ha expected us to like and dislike as she did despite the fact that we have no real inclination to ever agree with her on anything. Re-reading this I don't think I'm going anywhere new with this argument and I can't reviews as prettily as you folks do. All I can say is if you liked A Serious Man you'd probably enjoyed Inside Llewyn Davis. It was surprisingly less about the period music than O Brother was (a thing I really liked from that movie) but seeing as I'm not a huge fan of folk music that's ok. Just found out they reviewed Inside Llewyn Davis this week. Reading it I liked it better than Vargo did it seems. 100YrsofAttitude fucked around with this message at 12:47 on Dec 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2013 12:38
|
|
|
You're all such good writers and Keanu Grieves has certainly given me a good list of movies to look for. But it's Prof. Clumsy's pieces that make me feel like I learned something. He actually almost makes me want to re-watch Only God Forgives, not that I didn't get his points the first time around, it's far from a subtle movie, but he makes it sound so pretty and engaging that I'm lucky I remembered how much of a horrible slog it was to watch. So congrats Clumsy for writing with your heart on your sleeve. I don't think it's ever been in doubt but you really can tell the passion you have for what you do.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Has there ever been a good grim-dark action-fantasy film? And are they eventhat profitable ? It's so samey and each one just seems like a straight clone of a previous one that it's just dull.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Saw Nymphomaniac a while back and enjoyed Vol 1 for the most part. However, how bad was Shia's British accent? Because it sounded horrible to me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
I suppose it just reinforces your point but I haven't seen any of these movies even try to get distributed in France. Is that the case in other countries, or is it really a wholly domestic market?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:Give me Prof. Clumsy and his dongs any day of the week- at least he showed some self-awareness and humor. I too miss Professor Clumsy (I like all the current writers too!). Though I hated the movie, his review of Only God Forgives got me to re-watch it and while I still dislike it, I can appreciate it for what it is. I hope he comes back.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
It's not a hilarious joke but this made me chuckle:Vargo posted:Watching Annabelle is essentially like paying to see a Kings of Leon tribute band. I get the points that these should be funny and you tend to get jokes like these, not always of astounding quality, peppered throughout, but I do like the fact that they give their straight opinions. It's true I don't care enough to read each individuals blog, but it's nice it's compiled together in an easily accessible place that I visit frequently. There are features on the front page, I don't particularly care about, such as the Reviews of bad movies, since it just seems like shooting fish in a barrel and I don't get anything out of it. So I just don't read it and figure people are enjoying it in their own way since it's still there. Clearly these reviews get some level of readership so they stick around. It's not all that bad. Also it seems that they're getting a lot of new contributors, which is fine, but they probably still need to get used to the style of the site and of the reviews. It's generally those that have come off like straight reviews without any humor in them. I don't particularly how they choose to write it, but it could very well be just a matter of being new to it all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
For what it's worth, Professor Clumsy hasn't been writing any of the reviews for some time now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
lesbian baphomet posted:I have no idea who the movie front page people are or if you might be one of them, so i have no idea if I will be banned or whatever for saying this at you: You are illiterate, mentally unwell, and absolutely terrible at making posts of either the informative or comedic type. There is nothing good here in form or content. Don't think they write the reviews but it wasn't all that bad. This for instance is the reason I read CR: Black Bones posted:A good review is when the writer explains why they reacted the way they did to the film - so you, the viewer, can decide if it's the sort of thing that you would like to see, regardless of how they felt about it. Any movie that brings out genuine interest or ire on the part of the reviewer convinces me to at least watch the trailer and then decide for myself if I want to see the movie, if it's a movie I haven't heard about already.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
lesbian baphomet posted:Ah. Well, for a criticism: The reason I am uninterested in reading CR (one of many) is because virtually everything I have seen of it has been ire, and not necessarily genuine. That's definitely a really fair criticism. I do think it's possible to parse through the ones that are sincere or not but you raise the point that they're perhaps not doing their best on every review possible. There are some movies that definitely get more interest, especially lesser known movies that don't get a lot of publicity or advertising yet were good. Like Berberian Sound Studio, is it a great movie? Probably not, but I definitely enjoyed what it was trying to do. They get lazy in regards to movies like Left Behind where I feel they must assume most of their readers are definitely not going to see it one way or another. I know I wouldn't see it anyway regardless of what they had written about it. As for a movie like Gone Girl, I imagine most people know if they want to see it or not. Fincher's a big enough name for those who go to the movies regularly enough that they know if they like his stuff. The same goes for Affleck. So you often get dumb reviews of movies that are going to be seen either which way. The kid's movies reviews are generally the most ridiculous because it's a genre that most of their target audience is probably not going to see. I don't really blame them for the lackluster reviews in regards to movies no one really cares about, even though it does say that they may not be giving their all on every review, I think that's understandable.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
John Dyne posted:Trust me, I agree with you; it's okay when they do it with a film that might have been intended to have alternate meanings, like Frances Ha, but like you said, sticking it to The Wolverine or any other blockbuster film is ridiculous. This is a good idea. I would say though for movies you want to see, just go see them! Who cares what they thought of it? You are allowed to make your own opinions. Usually in those cases, when I'm certain I'm seeing a movie, I'll read the review afterwards so I don't go in with a bias. I mean it's lovely when you have a bad time at the movies, but it's nice to be able to make your own opinion about a film. Corridor posted:wait is black bones 'jay dub' or whomever was behind the current releases? i've been thinking he was some unrelated nut who was super defensive about the front page for some reason. Jay dub is jay dub and no one else I think.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:are you kidding me Why not have "fun" with such an article though? I imagine the majority of people were going to see Avengers anyway regardless of their opinions, and ticket sales proved that anyway. Yeah it's dumb and overwrought but I doubt anyone would've cared if he had said, "It's good go see it," or otherwise. Then again it's clear few really care what they think, so at that point what does it matter what they write? You don't have to read their articles and it's not like they're getting paid for this (I'm not sure about this actually but I figured front page writers weren't paid). If anything they're successful at getting people to talk about what they've written even if it's to tear it apart. No such thing as bad publicity and all that. Anyway it's a moot point to get on Prof. Clumsy's case because he doesn't write for CR anymore, and if last week was any indication they must actually be taking the criticism to heart since we only got reviews from Vargo and Jaydub who critique movies on the criteria you guys are demanding and for what it's worth I find they are consistently good. Also, regardless of if they're funny or not they do try to make jokes. So there's that. EDIT: I should self edit better before typing. 100YrsofAttitude fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:I personally far prefer fun (g0m) to "fun" (everyone else). That's just me, though. g0m's actually funny, he should be allowed to write more, and I hope he does. Pirate Jet posted:The issue with CR isn't that they're "overanalyzing" or that they're "pretentious," it's that they're trying to be critical and just being really loving bad at it. It came to a head with the Gone Girl review and for good reason, because that entire article is loving shameful. It's true it's only been a week, but I think that they've taken notice. Last week featured actual reviews even if they were bland. 100YrsofAttitude fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
zVxTeflon posted:did nay of the CR writers come here and defend their terrible reviews im not reading 70+ pages of this thread No.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 23:32
|
|