|
2007 status as a Great year for movies would be much better if the Great movie people talk about was Om Shanti Om, and not There Will Blood/No Country for Old Men/Zodiac. Of which of the three only the Fincher really stands up. Meanwhile in the year 1960, even when you exclude the Canon Greats like Psycho, The Apartment, La Avventura, La Dolce Vita and Breathless, you still have an insane roster of incredible films. Kurosawa released The Bad Sleep Well in 1960, often considered a minor Kurosawa, and honestly that movie is better than anything released in 2007.(with the exception of Om Shanti Om) Like Ozu made Late Autumn, and Naruse made 3 of his best films in 1960 like it was nothing. You also have Oshima with Cruel Story of Youth/The Sun's Burial/Night and Fog over Japan, Shinoda's Youth in Fury. And this is just Japan.
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 04:39 |
|
|
They're fine, but also the directors made far better stuff. Before in the case of the Coens, and after in PTA case.Uncle Boogeyman posted:they definitely both hold up better than L'Avventura Big wrongo. Edit: Also while I do like TWBB I do sort of agree with this classic Neil Bahadur letterboxd review these days quote:Pointless film, but Daniel Day-Lewis gives an astonishing performance as Waluigi Electronico6 fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Mar 16, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2021 15:34
|
|
|
They really don't hold up. Inherent Vice and The Master are PTA best movies, and for the Coen's like anything from the 90's. poo poo I'll even go as far as saying Burn After Reading and A Serious Man are their best 00's output.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2021 21:51
|
|
|
Cacator posted:I personally think 2006 is pretty solid too (maybe not for great cinema but for stuff I remember being entertained by), and I will defend Miami Vice until the day I die. Miami Vice squad assemble
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2021 23:51
|
|
|
Gladiator is(was?) 100% lazy sunday tv schedule filler.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2021 16:22
|
|
|
2011 top film obviously Johnnie To's double feature about the financial crisis, and two of the best!, Life Without Principle and Don't Go Breaking My Heart. However Johnnie To's movies were not considered for the Oscar, but his favorite film of that year The Artist, where he was judge at Cannes, did win Best Picture, so in some way, he was real the big winner that night. Runner's up: Hong Sang-soo's The Day He Arrives, Malick's The Tree of Life, Ann Hui's A Simple Life, Tarr's The Turin Horse, and Almodóvar's The Skin I Live In.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
Never forget we lost Mindhunter for this poo poo RIP Mindhunter
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I don't like Mank that much, but I'm not bothered by this. 4:3 can be used well, but he's right in a lot of his points about how it makes over the shoulder shots really difficult. Mank is a movie about the making of Citizen Kane, a film that proves every single of his points wrong. If Orson Welles could figure that poo poo out in 1941, I'm sure David "100 takes" Fincher could do it in 2020 too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2021 18:02
|
|
|
live with fruit posted:Mank is a movie about the writing of Citizen Kane. And even then, it's really a movie about Mank the man. This isn't RKO 281. If it's about the writing of Citizen Kane then why did they made to look like Citizen Kane? Why the B&W? Why go to the trouble to fake it to make it look like a movie from the 40's? Why plan the movie to be 4:3 from the start and give it up early on shoot? Why include direct visual references to it? Even if it's about Mank the man, the movie is utterly wrong about everything about him. Mank never had anything to do with Sinclair, his relationship to Hearst is borderline fictitious. The process depicted about the writing is also completely and factually wrong. The Pauline Kael essay this was based on has been debunked several times.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I really don't get the sense that they're saying Citizen Kane looks like poo poo, just that the aspect ratio has limitations. And I don't get the "figure it out" poo poo. Figure what out? Filming in an aspect ratio they're not comfortable with for a gimmick? Like you understand that you can't just "figure out" how to make this scene work in 4:3? The plot beats might be the same, but you would have to rethink so much of the composition and blocking as they correctly say. You can in fact just figure it out how to make a scene of a man addressing a big dinner table work in 4:3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDO_bh4G5zo Edit: Fincher and Messerschmidt were the ones that decided to do this gimmick. They gave it up already in early shooting. It is true that 4:3 means you have to approach scenes differently, but Messerschmidt is wrong about everything, even more so, when you have Citizen Kane hanging over you, proving every point wrong. Electronico6 fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Apr 1, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2021 19:23
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I just feel like the main difference is that I don't think they're saying you can't make a good looking movie in more squared ratios, just that it wasn't the movie they were trying to make or their approach to things. I'm reading their comments as more personal than inflammatory of other filmmakers. It was the movie they were trying to make. They shot it in (digital) B&W. In post they tried to make the picture and sound quality to mimic 1940's films. They put cigarette burns in the thing. Fincher set out to make a movie in 2020 that looked like one out of 1940. But he flopped in the most important part, the aspect ratio! They started in 4:3, and gave up early, it's right there in the man's interview. They planned it from the start, the gimmick was the wide composition that they settled during the shoot, cause they couldn't pull 4:3. A ratio by the way, that Zack Snyder managed to make it work for a film that he shot 3 years ago for imax frame, but covered for wide. Then the DP comes out with an interview saying that in 4:3, in his own words, "you can't really do shoot overs" "you can't do shots with perspective". These are the limitations that he is talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9OUZNicTGU Here's some overs, here's some perspective, here's a two minute and a half long one shot without breaking a sweat. Like if he said that 4:3 isn't really good for snakes and funerals I would understand.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2021 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 04:39 |
|
|
From the interview it was the first of their problems. Poor filmmaking right from the start, probably why the movie was a miss! Edit: Their second problem was trying to rip off a certified movie buff without asking https://twitter.com/greggturkington/status/1375600295120531460?s=20 Electronico6 fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Apr 1, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2021 21:17
|
|