Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Chichevache
Feb 17, 2010

One of the funniest posters in GIP.

Just not intentionally.
Cross posting from the Stoker Thread since I loved the film so much.


Chichevache posted:

I just saw this film last night and absolutely loved it. Mia Wasikowska portrayed India in an amazingly dangerous way. Matthew Goode? Holy poo poo. I am not really familiar with him as an actor but after this I feel the urge to go through his prior works and see if he is that incredible in other films. Both of these characters constantly had a sense of violence simmering just beneath the surface and it made for an incredibly tense film.

One point I feel has not been mentioned enough is the portrayal of India and Charlie as superhumans. Their senses are all heightened to the point that they couldn't really relate to others anymore. The sound of a spider walking was audible to India. I feel this played very well into their inability to become physically close to others. Both were so sensitive that it became overwhelming when they were touched. It seemed to me that as the spider climbed India's thigh she was able to enjoy it physically because of how slight and delicate its touch was. Just another way they tied violence, danger, and sex together.



xzoto1 posted:

I thought the film was poo poo and this is coming from a big Chan-wook Park fan. The script felt too muddled and the only "almost" saving grace was Park in the directors seat because of his unique style.

As for the cinematography, I thought it was distracting for the most part. The way the shots were framed was awkward. There seems to be an abundance of head room for the actors/actresses and many wide shots with two characters interacting simultaneously without cutting back and forth. It was literally the first thing I noticed in the film and it really pulled my focus away.

I think this ties into my earlier point. You are supposed to be off balance and distracted by the visuals. The sights and sounds are meant to be too intense and distracting, just as they are for India. The director lets you into her mind by giving you her abilities. By doing this he lets you feel just as assaulted by the constant intake of visual and aural information that India is. I personally thought it was brilliantly handled.




I wouldn't recommend this film to everyone, but if you enjoy Nicholas Winding Refn films like Drive or Valhalla Rising you may enjoy this. I found the slow burn style before bursting into sudden violence to be very similar. Also if you love intense cinematography and choreography, this film has it. There are multiple scenes composed of nearly minute long single shots that are so beautifully done I am still thinking about them 24 hours later. The scene when India lures Whip into the woods from the playground? Fantastic. The amount of work they put into that shot must have been staggering.

I realize my tastes probably fall out of the mainstream a bit, but I have to give this film a 5/5. It is probably a little early to crown Stoker the best film I'll see in 2013, but I don't think I will see another film that has visuals and sounds as impressive as this one. I really think it deserves an Oscar nod for cinematography.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Chichevache
Feb 17, 2010

One of the funniest posters in GIP.

Just not intentionally.

Some Guy TT posted:



So, has anyone ever gone to a really famous place or city, and just been a little surprised that there wasn't really that much to do there since you don't know anybody? That's what Night and Day is about. The main character is an artist trying to wait out a drug bust by hanging out in France and he spends most his time doing pointless, boring, non-constructive stuff. It's a lot of fun to watch as a comedy because the view toward travelling is just so comically unromantic compared to the way tourist tropes are normally used.

As someone who has become incredibly jaded towards traveling I am really intrigued by this. Thanks for pointing it out.

Chichevache
Feb 17, 2010

One of the funniest posters in GIP.

Just not intentionally.

Some Guy TT posted:

Heard that Snowpiercer may finally be getting a US release. No actual date so I suppose it's just wait and see. The main change relative to previous news is that we're looking at a limited release instead of a mainstream one.


gently caress Weinstein. At least I'll get to see the movie though, as I expect them to be releasing it somewhere in Los Angeles at least.

Chichevache
Feb 17, 2010

One of the funniest posters in GIP.

Just not intentionally.

Some Guy TT posted:

...And Snowpiercer is now set for a US release date of June 27th. For those of you who haven't looked at your movie release calendars lately, that's the same week Transformers 4 opens. I would like to note, once again, that if the Weinsteins had just released it right away the only competition would have been Smurfs 2. I don't think I'll ever understand what exactly they were trying to accomplish with any of this.


1.When it flops they can blame the director.
2.???????????????????????????
3. Profit?

  • Locked thread