Profile
Search
Register
Log in
The New Rolling Movie Thread
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Hall of Fame

Author Message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Self Conscious wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
Self Conscious wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
Self Conscious wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
Self Conscious wrote:
i tired watching inland empire but couldn't get past the low production values, the standard definition and horrible editing. one of the few films, i can only think of two, that i didn't finish after i started watching them. so i watched Terribly Happy instead.


Wow. How did you watch it? Never heard that complaint about Inland Empire before. It's my favorite Lynch film. It finds this wonderful groove of what Lynch does best, and rather than fuck around, just sits in that groove for like 3 hours. It's a dirge of everything I love about lynch. I could have that movie on a loop for days and not get tired of it. In fact, I think we might have just looped it for like 15 or 16 hours straight when I got it, and just sort of had it as background in our apartment for a day.


on dvd


Hmm. Then I have no idea. My partner doesn't like the film either, but had never heard those types of criticisms as reasons for not liking it before.
I think perhaps you are reacting to specific choices made by the director in terms of lighting, acting, set design, sound, and editing. None of the choices are of a bad quality, but I can see how perhaps you may not have responded well to those choices.

I'd be interested to hear a more specific critique in terms of the production values, to get a better understanding of what you're talking about when you say that.

Because clearly you enjoy other good flims that aren't high production value hollywood affairs.

And then what in the editing bothered you?


i didn't like how bad of quality the picture was, which could have definitely been the reason for me thinking the production quality was bad. the camera shots of the actors that were so close to their face that it didnt look like something that was different but something an amateur would do. when they are following the neighbor up to the main women's house, its shaky and hand-held but in a bad way, it again looked like an amateur did it. I also remember the scene where they are talking about their parts and the camera being way above their head, it was strange and all these types of shots didn't look like he was trying to do something different but that he didn't think it through.


as for the editing, it felt like he was saying, ill film your face turn around and film the actor your talking to then the shots will just alternate when each persons talking, back and forth. in other films they sometimes show the actor who is not talking to show their reaction while we just hear the audio from the other. this did not happen. i don't know if thats the best way to describe it.

I also felt like the sound design was one the worst ive heard. did all they have were the mics on the camera? cause it sure felt that way. when an actor was far from the camera you couldn't hear them and not in a they are further away so it must sound that way but in a our mics cant pick up sound that far away way.

i read that the actor didn't really was script, lynch would just give them lines for the day, and you could tell. it sounds like a good idea in the sense of this movie but it just doesn't work. i get that it creates the feel that these actors don't know what is reality and what is not but it also doesn't let them get into their characters and it shows.


First David Lynch film, huh? Ha. Yeah none of those things are by accident. They are all distinct choices by the director to create a specific mood. The script stuff, all Lynch films are like that. He wants his actors to be kind of wooden like telenovella/soap opera actors.


actually ive seen The Elephant Man but his distinct choices do nothing for me. i would have sat through it cause i hate not giving the film a chance but i just couldn't invest 3 hours into that movie. the premise seemed really cool and the thing im into. i probably would have been able to get through all the other stuff if the video quality was better. the story is most important but i just couldn't get emotional invested in something that in my opinion looked so poorly done. i think he fails at creating that mood. i might still try Mulholland Dr. but i guess im just not a fan.


Between Elephant Man and Inland Empire you've seen the breadth of what Lynch can do visually. So yeah, I wouldn't waste your time with watching any of this other films. You would hate them for all of the same reasons you stopped watching Inland Empire. You might be able to make it through Dune if you are a sci-fi geek. But that's about it.
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 7:20 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
Raoul DeGroot wrote:

He's interested in simplicity and banality juxtaposed against moments of the super real and the terror that underpins existence, but I think he's accidently substituting generic, made for TV style camera work for that Edward Hopper style bareness that he really wants.



Yeah accidentally...for 30 freaking years. Plus Elephant Man and the Straight Story show he could shoot things different if he chose to. Dude likes the made for TV aesthetic because it's freaking nostalgia with the sublime. I don't think the terror would be as palattable if he made the choices you seem to want him to make. He would end up with a Guillermo Del Toro movie if he did it your way. Which is still a fine thing, but in some ways Lynch is akin to Dario Argento in his naked focus solely on the terrible.

I've been rewatching Twin Peaks this week, and it's hilarious how though on the surface the town is very beaver cleaver and "made-for-TV" it is, but as each layer is pealed back more corruption and evil is revealed. Twin Peaks really is his opus.

Lynch's sense of humor is sometimes underappreciated as well. Some of these disjunctions are merely meant to be funny or lewd.

For my money Lynch is the best in his usage of sound, lighting, and camera to the effect of sublime moments. And Inland Empire has some of his best moments strung together one right after another. In Inland Empire, he's finally stopped fucking around and gets right to what you came for, and just does it over and over. Inland Empire he finally understands himself as a filmmaker--as a master of the sublime--and just creates these beautiful youtube esque nodes that you sort of sway into with the barest concern for larger context. Everything fits even as it makes little attempt to.

Makes sense as well considering it started out as a series of web shorts.



I can't believe you'd even suggest that I'd have anything to do with anyone producing something like a Guillermo Del toro movie. That guy's soul is underneath his belly apron with his Todd McFarlane figurines.

Elephant man and the straight story were all about absence of style. So of course he could handle it. Plus black and white mixed with Jon Hurt can conceal a multitude of sins.

David Lynch's style needs a Leave it to Beaver TV edge. That's true. What I'm saying is that he's not achieving it. He's getting a confused approximation. I think he's a director in search of a good DP. That's that.
I could get specific shot by shot, but we'd just have to watch the movies as I break it down and change your David Lynch worldviews for eternity.


You just like inland empire because you think its witch haus anyway.

David Lynch. Better in theory than in practice.
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 7:33 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

Self Conscious, you'd prefer Lost Highway or Mulholland drive. That's about as polished as Lynch ever got.
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 7:35 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
nodirectionhome



Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 130
 Reply with quote  

I'd have to agree with futurist that twin peaks is his opus, but that was mostly the first season. the second one kind of fell off with that whole windom earle thing, but was still enjoyable.

my personal favorite is eraserhead. it's raw as hell, and the documentary of the making (more like lynch talking for an hour) was really interesting. it's crazy that it took him five years to make the film
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 9:09 pm
 View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Self Conscious



Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 322
Location: Sleeping in a box car dreaming of lost starts
 Reply with quote  

i just watched irreversible and it didn't disappoint. i am a huge fan of enter the void so checked out Noe's other work and i must say, he is becoming one of my favorite directors. i find his style memorizing and i love the long takes. his films always make me emotionally invested in the characters (even as dull as Oscar in enter the void) and care what happens to them or care about them cause their fate is usually determined early on in the films. he makes me interested in the journey the characters take. the whole, the journey is more important than the destination, really rings true with his films.

Last edited by Self Conscious on Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:26 pm; edited 2 times in total
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:16 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Z-0



Joined: 28 Sep 2004
Posts: 700
Location: Sydney
 Reply with quote  

Self Conscious wrote:
i love the long takes.


watch Russian Ark. a staging marvel.
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:24 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

I just like the Harry Potter movies. Have you guys seen the Harry Potter movies? They're good.
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:30 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Raoul DeGroot wrote:



I can't believe you'd even suggest that I'd have anything to do with anyone producing something like a Guillermo Del toro movie. That guy's soul is underneath his belly apron with his Todd McFarlane figurines.



Ha. You won't catch me making fun of the most mainstream and visible folklorist monster maker going right now. Those Hellboy movies were everything a Superhero movie should be. Which incidentally--the irony of Mike Mignola....oh wait that was eric powell--even the same the writer of goon complaining that people are reading too many superhero books--dude what do you think you are writing?!

Plus I agree with Del Toro's Ron Pearlman man love. Chronos was positively phantasmagoric. Devil's Backbone was notable if only for it's interpolitation of the spanish civil war with a horror story at an orphanage before that shit got too done(but fuck me I'd watch a spooky orphanage movie again in a second that french one with Charlotte Gainsbourg's half sister was the business). Anyways. Get off my Del Toro lawn. I'm rolling thick for the geeks on this one.


Quote:


David Lynch's style needs a Leave it to Beaver TV edge. That's true. What I'm saying is that he's not achieving it. He's getting a confused approximation.


Yeah well if he's not achieving it, find me the guy who is, so I can go worship at his fount.


Quote:


You just like inland empire because you think its witch haus anyway.



This is actually true. I like Witch House for a lot of the same reasons I like Inland Empire. Though Witch House you also get 70s giallo film boobies to with it.

Witch House. A genre of music you can even enjoy with the sound off.
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:00 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Charlie Foxtrot



Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 1379
Location: Rochester, NY
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
I want to see Sucker Punch. I like robots. Girls with swords. And ninjas/samurais.


I liked it. It delivers exactly what the trailers promised. Not liking it is sort of like criticizing a Kevin Smith movie for having too many dick jokes.
Post Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:00 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8524
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
I want to see Sucker Punch. I like robots. Girls with swords. And ninjas/samurais.


I liked it. It delivers exactly what the trailers promised. Not liking it is sort of like criticizing a Kevin Smith movie for having too many dick jokes.


I was against seeing this movie on the grounds that it was trying to give an anime feel to live action, but I changed my mind when I found out Zack Snyder was directing. For 300 and the Dawn of the Dead remake alone I felt he deserved some respect. I also really liked Emily Browning in The Uninvited. Long story short, I'll see this, but not in the theater.
Post Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:19 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

The problem with a kevin smith movie isn't dick jokes. That is what's good about Kevin Smith movies. What's bad is that he encases his dick jokes in stilted production choices and purposelessly flat deliveries. Because he's inept and lazy.

Likewise a Zack Snyder movie isn't bad beacause of fighting and robots n shit. It's bad because of the consistently bizarre decisions he makes about what's cool and what's going to accentuate the things he's interested in.
It's bad in a similar way to the matrix 2 where keanu fights the mob of agent smiths like a scene out of mary poppins with the chimney sweeps.
It's bad like the way a dumb kid simulates fighting with his GI Joes.
It's bad like Alanis Morissete lyrics.

He doesn't have visceral action down because he doesn't care if the shit looks like stunt mimicry and video game imbecilery. He can't do camp because he's both not aware enough or not oblivious enough to really get there.

Dude is just a clusterfuckl of awful. He's ruining comic book adaptations and he needs to be stopped.

babycakes finstah attack or whatever that movie is called was like someone held me upside down and poured mountain dew into my skull for an hour and a half.

these rants will be even better when I'm very fat
Post Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:41 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Sarcastro



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3281
 Reply with quote  

ooh I want on board on the Zack Snyder hate. Dawn was amazing and everything since then has been sooooooooo fucking boring.

300 was boring
how were people even mildly entertained, everything was slow, the fighting wasn't actually good, it had the pacing of a fuckin video game...well they fought 1000 soldiers in level one, let's take a break and now get them to fight the rhinos in lvl 2, then a break and then magicians in lvl 3. UGH
and the whole time it felt like he was trying to bite Robert Rodriguez's style from Sin City but forgot that there's more to his style than just the look

Watchmen had a great intro and then was awful from that point on.

fuck zack snyder
Post Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:52 am
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Oh don't get me wrong I hate Zach Snyder's work. But I want to encourage him as much as possible on this suckerpunch movie because maybe it means he will just keep making his own shit, instead of ruining great comics that I love.

I'm doing it to save We3 and the Invisibles.

On this whole tip though. Frank Miller's The Spirit is an under appreciated film. I think it's better than RR's Sin Citys. It's so weird and beautiful and great. It definitely is Frank Miller does The Spirit.
Post Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:05 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8524
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
On this whole tip though. Frank Miller's The Spirit is an under appreciated film. I think it's better than RR's Sin Citys. It's so weird and beautiful and great. It definitely is Frank Miller does The Spirit.


I don't know if I can agree with this. You're clearly more into graphic novels, but I much preferred the story AND visuals of Sin City to The Spirit. I liked The Spirit, but I can't see myself ever watching it again, whereas I've seen Sin City a number of times and enjoyed it thoroughly and in new ways.
Post Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:07 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Captiv8 wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
On this whole tip though. Frank Miller's The Spirit is an under appreciated film. I think it's better than RR's Sin Citys. It's so weird and beautiful and great. It definitely is Frank Miller does The Spirit.


I don't know if I can agree with this. You're clearly more into graphic novels, but I much preferred the story AND visuals of Sin City to The Spirit. I liked The Spirit, but I can't see myself ever watching it again, whereas I've seen Sin City a number of times and enjoyed it thoroughly and in new ways.


I felt like the visuals in the Spirit were way more over the top than Sin City. And the story was a lot crazier as well. I like my mad mad Frank Miller.
Post Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:04 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Wed Aug 20, 2014 4:48 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon