• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2017
    i mentioned it above smile i love it.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2017 edited
    Demetris wrote
    The wrestler is his most mature, inner-fighting inner-struggling character-centered film to date.I think he tried to do the same troubled character with noah ,which is a theme he frequently revisits, but created a religious mambo jambo mess imo.


    at least it had my favorite part of the Bible, those giant rock monsters!!
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2017
    Aidabaida wrote
    Demetris wrote
    The wrestler is his most mature, inner-fighting inner-struggling character-centered film to date.I think he tried to do the same troubled character with noah ,which is a theme he frequently revisits, but created a religious mambo jambo mess imo.


    at least it had my favorite part of the Bible, those giant rock monsters!!


    yeah that was pretty much amazing! And man that was Arronofsky on drugs. It wouldn't be the first time wink hehe but interesting to see how many people deal with that matter, on whether: "Who are the rock giants in Noah the movie? Are they to be identified with the Watchers, fallen angels in the Book of Enoch?" if you google "noah giant rock monsters" biggrin
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2017 edited
    The Daily Show had a great piece on this defending the film around its release, but it's all of a sudden incredibly useless to search YouTube for "daily show noah".
  1. Thomas Glorieux wrote
    Aidabaida wrote
    Thomas Glorieux wrote
    I saw this one today as well. I on the other hand wasn't that excited by it. I wasn't bored by it, but this is not an Alien movie for me. For me this is more a 2001 film. There are some good scenes, and the first birth of the Alien hybrids is pretty intense. Too bad the finale (with the actual Alien) is pretty lame (hardly any tension at all and it was already over before it started). Plus like nobody saw the climax coming at the end, for real script writers?)

    There were some highlights in this one, but too much felt like David this and David that. It should have been called David: An Alien Love Story, because he really had a hard one for those Aliens. And don't get me started on the music, delivering absolutely nothing of any importance. No danger, no excitement, no thrill. Not even for the discovery of the Alien ship, it just meanders along.

    Worth a look, but hardly a knock out for me.
    6 out of 10


    someone suggested that Ridley Scott knew the xenomorphs aren't really scary any more, so he had a new creepy character instead: David. I agree that the 'twist' was obvious, but I think it was supposed to be. If I were the screenwriters I would've [spoiler]explicitly shown David kill Walter and not even feign an attempt to hide it[/spoiler]...

    I felt that if "Alien" was horror and "Aliens" was action, this was more straight sci-fi, attempting to tell an interesting story about a strange, puzzling planet (David's lair was really fascinating!) instead of attempting to be 'scary'.


    The Alien is still scary, ... when done right. Here it's out in the open and the movie never plays on the claustrophobic tension of the first 2 films. Even in Aliens the space was always confined so you knew they could never go far (aliens and marines). When I saw the trailer and how Waterston was running around like Ripley in Aliens, I felt it could have been a return to that claustropic'ness (if that's a word). But no they just send it off into space without any sort of tense development. Again it had good scenes, but overall I felt nothing special the moment it ended.

    And that much talked about shower scene, pfff 20 seconds of what? To show a boob?


    I bought the Blu-ray and instantly watched it. It's not great, but it's actually a better than average Alien film. The first act (the whole setup with the crew and the many Jerry Goldsmith nods) was superbly done, I had chills. In general Covenant follows the formula of the first, but misses that essential element from the first film (and for me also the third), the feeling of dread, isolation and hopelessness against such a terrible foe. The music in those films helped tremendously to create that ambience. Covenant feels more like a generic modern action film set in space, with some gruesome R-rated scenes. But the real enemy was something else than what I expected, so in the end I enjoyed it because I didn't expect something as brilliant as Alien and Aliens. Visually it's stylish as we come to expect from Ridley Scott. A good enough sequel to Prometheus (which is flawed but good). Bring on the third (and final?) chapter.
    "considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2017 edited
    Edit:wrong thread :/
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2017 edited
    Steven wrote
    Edit:wrong thread :/


    Was that your comment on American politics? Because I think you can be forgiven for seeing a sentence like "the feeling of dread and hopelessness against such a terrible foe" and mistaking it for the Trump discussion
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2017
    Yup!
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2017
    BobdH wrote
    The Daily Show had a great piece on this defending the film around its release, but it's all of a sudden incredibly useless to search YouTube for "daily show noah".


    wink
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeSep 17th 2017 edited
    La La Land

    Wow. I thought Chazelle's whiplash was good, but this was on another level. A heartbreaking, exquisitely crafted movie, that fully embraces whatever emotion it is evoking at any moment.

    I'll specifically highlight the excellent job the movie does making you feel like time is passing. By the end, you can believe that years have passed.

    The music was catchy and heartfelt. The cinematography was lovely. The acting was nuanced. The humor was subtle and resigned.

    I don't usually say this, but I don't understand how someone could dislike this movie.

    Incredible.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2017
    For me, it tried too hard. So I ended up being apathetic rather than involved.
    I am extremely serious.
  2. I thought it was great. It couldn't have hurt that the score was already my favorite of the year by the time I saw it.
  3. Aidabaida wrote
    La La Land

    Wow. I thought Chazelle's whiplash was good, but this was on another level.


    Did you know that this was the film that Chazelle and Hurwitz came out of film school wanting to make, but that no one would buy it? So they made WHIPLASH and after that was a success they got a studio to green light this one.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2017
    Thor wrote
    For me, it tried too hard. So I ended up being apathetic rather than involved.


    obviously even the epilogue PALED in comparison to the average Junkie XL track!

    christopher wrote
    Did you know that this was the film that Chazelle and Hurwitz came out of film school wanting to make, but that no one would buy it? So they made WHIPLASH and after that was a success they got a studio to green light this one.


    yeah, I heard that! both movies are excellent, but I preferred La La Land. Chazelle is so good at incredible, conflicted endings. Both Whiplash and La La Land leave you wanting to cheer, but also with plenty to think about as well.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2017
    I really liked WHIPLASH, though.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2017
    Thor wrote
    I really liked WHIPLASH, though.


    good to hear. part of the reason I'd rate Whiplash just below La La Land is because Whiplash was a fairly dark and brutal movie - and there's a lot of that to go around, especially in the 'oscar bait', serious-drama world. to see Chazelle switch gears into that rare thing, a warm, positive, romantic movie, was refreshing; one sign of a good artist is someone who doesn't rehash the same tricks every time, whose able to switch gears while maintaining complete artistic control and integrity.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2017 edited
    MOTHER! - Darren Aronofsky

    HOLY SHIT!

    First off, it's been a while since I've been completely and utterly surprised by a film - when one after the other film is marketed exactly as is, so people just know what to expect, mother! is refreshing, to say the least. To also see a director who is willing to take on somethingi so ambitious, big and wild, is something else I greatly admire. This was a huge gamble on several fronts and I much prefer to see someone do something completely different, to break out of the mold of filmmaking completely and fail, than to see someone who adheres to all the rules and succeed unsurprisingly.

    But, and here comes the kicker - Aronofsky doesn't fail. Sure, it's anything but subtle, it's a loud hit in the face, but the experience is so overwhelming, it's such a thrill ride of a film, that its flaws become less important than its successes. From the excellent sound design to the performances to the constant flow of new events, this film keeps your attention - and when it gets really wild, I was glued to the screen.

    Sure, it's excessive, its extreme, but this is activism on film and he wants to leave an impression. He wanted to do something radical to have people talking. Let's hope people will talk about what they're supposed to talk about. But this is definitely for everyone and I do feel like I will need to defend this film for years to come, but I am ready.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2017
    Aidabaida wrote
    La La Land

    Wow. I thought Chazelle's whiplash was good, but this was on another level. A heartbreaking, exquisitely crafted movie, that fully embraces whatever emotion it is evoking at any moment.

    I'll specifically highlight the excellent job the movie does making you feel like time is passing. By the end, you can believe that years have passed.

    The music was catchy and heartfelt. The cinematography was lovely. The acting was nuanced. The humor was subtle and resigned.

    I don't usually say this, but I don't understand how someone could dislike this movie.

    Incredible.


    Depends on how you view life in general. If you are a hopeless romantic or a cynical bastard. I didn't like it either wink
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2017
    BobdH wrote
    MOTHER! - Darren Aronofsky

    HOLY SHIT!

    First off, it's been a while since I've been completely and utterly surprised by a film - when one after the other film is marketed exactly as is, so people just know what to expect, mother! is refreshing, to say the least. To also see a director who is willing to take on somethingi so ambitious, big and wild, is something else I greatly admire. This was a huge gamble on several fronts and I much prefer to see someone do something completely different, to break out of the mold of filmmaking completely and fail, than to see someone who adheres to all the rules and succeed unsurprisingly.

    But, and here comes the kicker - Aronofsky doesn't fail. Sure, it's anything but subtle, it's a loud hit in the face, but the experience is so overwhelming, it's such a thrill ride of a film, that its flaws become less important than its successes. From the excellent sound design to the performances to the constant flow of new events, this film keeps your attention - and when it gets really wild, I was glued to the screen.

    Sure, it's excessive, its extreme, but this is activism on film and he wants to leave an impression. He wanted to do something radical to have people talking. Let's hope people will talk about what they're supposed to talk about.


    Interesting. I'll see that next week on cinema. But i am worried he tries to pull a Von Trier on us? I absolutely adore von trier and if am sensing such notions or tendencies in the film i know it's going to spoil it for me.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2017
    Thor wrote
    I really liked WHIPLASH, though.


    Same here, very intelligent and intense film.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2017 edited
    Demetris wrote
    Interesting. I'll see that next week on cinema. But i am worried he tries to pull a Von Trier on us? I absolutely adore von trier and if am sensing such notions or tendencies in the film i know it's going to spoil it for me.


    No man, like Thor also said, this is nothing like Von Trier. That notion is even funny once you know the film. Maybe minor elements if you look for it, but this is a different beast entirely. It's also pure Aronofsky. Believe me, if you have only seen the trailer, you have NO idea what you're getting into. And you should keep it that way.

    Or, come to think of it. Yeah. Sure. It's like Von Trier. Expect that. And make sure you have something soft on the floor for your jaw to drop on.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2017
    But does it have dinosaurs?
    Or at least explosions?
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2017
    Martijn wrote
    But does it have dinosaurs?
    Or at least explosions?


    No.
    [spoiler]And yes. By God, yes.[/spoiler]
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2017
    I'll reserve judgment.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2017
    BobdH wrote
    Demetris wrote
    Interesting. I'll see that next week on cinema. But i am worried he tries to pull a Von Trier on us? I absolutely adore von trier and if am sensing such notions or tendencies in the film i know it's going to spoil it for me.


    No man, like Thor also said, this is nothing like Von Trier. That notion is even funny once you know the film. Maybe minor elements if you look for it, but this is a different beast entirely. It's also pure Aronofsky. Believe me, if you have only seen the trailer, you have NO idea what you're getting into. And you should keep it that way.

    Or, come to think of it. Yeah. Sure. It's like Von Trier. Expect that. And make sure you have something soft on the floor for your jaw to drop on.


    Thanks! Eager to see this.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2017
    Well, at least you now have two wildly different evaluations of the film, D. Should be interesting to see if you fall down on my or Bob's side on this.
    I am extremely serious.
  4. When I first knew him, your father was already a great pilot...

    I
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeSep 19th 2017
    Btw:

    [Quote] Anyway, Rex Reed of the New York Observer got right off the fence. “This delusional freak show is two hours of pretentious twaddle,” he said, concluding: “I hesitate to label it the ‘Worst movie of the year’ when ‘Worst movie of the century’ fits it even better.” It has now received an “F” score from the Las Vegas market research firm CinemaScore, which hands out survey cards to movie audiences and collates the results from A to F. The grades have a good record in predicting box office. F for fail is very rare. Films that have got this market research badge of shame/pride include Steven Soderbergh’s remake of Tarkovsky’s Solaris, William Friedkin’s horror film Bug, and Andrew Dominik’s Killing Them Softly. [/Quote]

    Source : What the F? How Mother! joined the 'bad movie' club

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/s … F%81%CE%BF

    Seriously though my biggest fear with the movie is her acting cause everything she has done so far and I have seen shows she absolutely cannot act. Don't like her at all and a weird choice for lead actress by Arronofsky. I am going in with an open mind and hoping she proves me wrong. Every major review I've read so far tells me I am going to laugh or get pissed off most probably wink
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeSep 19th 2017
    And yes , here comes the obvious von Trier references I've seen from the trailer and was worried about :

    "In my review, I suggested the three films that Mother! has leaned on are Luis Buñuel’s The Exterminating Angel, Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby and Lars von Trier’s Antichrist: it offers surrealism, horror, arthouse provocation. Those who don’t like Mother! are those who don’t get or don’t like the third element, the deadpan black comedy it offers in the von Trier vein"
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeSep 19th 2017 edited
    What the? Man, stop reading reviews. You have no idea how off the mark all of this is. Also feels like it doesn't matter what we tell you. Can't really explain how off that last quote is as that would spoil it.

    And it seems you already have your opinion ready. If you already don't like Jennifer Lawrence (did you see Winter's Bone? Silver Linings Playbook?), and go in with all this preconceived negativity, you'll probably hate this. But please stop spreading negativity about something you don't even KNOW yet if you love or hate it.