|
I absolutely loved this film and the way people are calling it boring and predicatable is exactly how I felt about Black Swan - there wasn't a moment in that film that was surprising that you didn't expect from the trailer. Like someone else in the thread said, I think the legacy of this is going to be more like The Fountain (although it will do better box office) and I think most people who liked that film will like this, and most who hated it won't. I think there is enough that non-religious people will find something to enjoy about the film, but it's quite respectful if you are religious.The stop-motion rock monsters, the silhouette imagery, the montages including especially the "evolution" montage were totally really cool and I'm glad to see things like that in a mainstream Hollywood movie, religious epic or no. edit: For me what I really took away from the film was the strong environmental message. Also I don't need to look it up to tell from this movie that Aronofsky is 100% a vegetarian BOAT SHOWBOAT fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Mar 30, 2014 |
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:All of those meth PSA's he directed are better than Requiem for a Dream. The two incredible things about Requiem are Ellen Burstyn's performance and the realization that Jennifer Connelly is in her late thirties playing a nineteen year old. I think she had just turned 30 but yeah. Honestly I really like Requiem for a Dream. I think "Trainspotting did it better" is kind of missing the point (Danny Boyle is my favourite director, so I'm tempted to side with that view) as they're about different sides of drug use. I don't think there needs to be one "canon" movie about it. It's not a subtle movie (are any of Aronofsky's films) but it's totally visually and emotionally compelling, and there isn't much else like it. The claim that "Aronofsky's never made a great movie" is interesting. He seems to be a rare case where literally every movie he's made has a sizeable number of people who would argue that it's his greatest film. There aren't many directors you can say that about.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:It's late here (UK) so I'll do a quick summary and answer any questions tomorrow but basically; Whoa, if you're telling the truth (and I don't know why you'd make this up, although memory failing and misunderstandings can happen) the third act is very very different. To be honest, as batshit crazy as that sounds it doesn't necessarily seem "better" than what we got. Although everything after they get off the boat in the released version is a bit too hunky dory. edit: and yeah i agree with the guy above who said Ham's girlfriend getting trampled is really important to the film. That's one of the more disturbing deaths I can think of in in recent cinema, despite not being particularly gory. BOAT SHOWBOAT fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:Yeah, and even then instead of "story of Jesus = kid appropriate", you would have parents saying poo poo like "You need to see this so you know how Jesus suffered for you" when the kids are freaking out in the theater and begging to go home. I'd rather kids see this than be exposed to the bloodless violence without consequences of the Marvel superhero films. That's a lot more misleading and psychologically damaging.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Has anyone seen the David Twohy film Below which Aronofsky co-wrote and co-produced? Does it bear any noticeable marks of Aronofsky-ness/is it worth watch at all? I think he's a better director than writer, and I don't particularly like Twohy (The Chronicles of Riddick is an absolute mess) but I'm still somewhat curious about it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:I'm an atheist and environmentalist, and how did the movie have an environmental message? I came out of it thinking Noah should have saved more people and killed and ate some deer if he was worried about running out of food. They had plenty of redundant ungulates. The movie celebrates the beauty of animals and nature and intentionally presents meat eating as disgusting and almost like cannibalism. The Ray Winstone character is a villain who believes Man should use and destroy the Earth as he wishes as a sign of humanity's prowess. The beginning of the movie also possibly suggests that this isn't set in the past at all, but in a post-apocalyptic future after an environmental crisis devastates the planet.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Having not seen the movie but having quickly read the tie-in comic, the ruins (which totally look like a Heavy Metal lost-future-civilization thing) are a result of the crashed angels giving humans science and magic, and humans blowing it (iirc by turning on the angels when they wouldn't pony over more secrets or something). So it sorta is post-apocalyptic but not the future. Sorry but this isn't part of my canon.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Just saw it. I got a lot of Prometheus vibes from it along with Immortals(2011). Definitely got Prometheus vibes from it as well. I hadn't seen it, but this post has convinced me to watch Immortals.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
I still think this movie is one of the best films of the year and while I'm glad that other great films (Gone Girl, Boyhood) are probably going to be recognised I'm a little sad that this is going to be looked over at Awards season.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2014 08:34
|
|