Netphoria Message Board


Go Back   Netphoria Message Board > General Boards > General Chat Message Board
Register Netphoria's Amazon.com Link Members List Photo Album Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-21-2016, 03:31 AM   #121
teh b0lly!!1
Socialphobic
 
teh b0lly!!1's Avatar
 
Location: Your soul
Posts: 14,349
Default

Midnight in Paris

some guy travels in paris with his distant fiance, and discovers he can travel back in time to the 1920's.

watched it following a rec from a friend with a boneheaded kind of taste.
this is probably the first woody allen movie i actually hated.

the list of annoyances, in no particular order:

* owen wilson (the lead) is a shit actor. first of all, his nose looks like a crooked dick. second, i suspect Woody only picked him because they possess the same kinda jewish-american New Jersey nasal whine in their voices. third, he just kinda talks like a douche and constantly looks blown away by what's happening at all times. i guess that's sort of in line with the plot, but he has zero depth as a performer.

* there is literally the same ONE piece of music playing throughout the entire movie. whenever there's a slight interlude from mostly terrible dialogue, this initially endearing, then incredibly grating acoustic musical piece just fades in and out to accompany any scene not involving talking.

* the story is fucking dumb as shit. obviously it's fantasy, but the way it was treated cinematically just didn't make it feel that way. it just feels concocted, groundless, and unhinged. person goes to a bar in Paris and whop - Hemmingway, T.S Elliott, Salvador Dali and Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald are all there! gosh darnit. who'd imagine?!

* oh yeah, and all those characters eat sack too. horrific acting. seriously, terrible acting all around in this movie. adrian brody as salvador dali was especially lol. there were a few minor exceptions though, mostly small supporting roles.

* the whole thing wraps up in the most pathetic way. it starts off, introduces the fantasy 20's thing in a very crude, stitched up way, never picks up at all, and ends like a weak, bitter fart.

upsides:

* like all of allen's movies i'd watched so far, it nicely represents upper middle class life in beautiful european cities.

* pretty good cinematography.

* sharp digs at smug know-it-all academic farts, and grossly materialistic women in relationships, in what is probably the only worthwhile part of the movie (the introduction, with Michael Sheen and Rachel McAdams playing nice supporting roles).

for further updates and DIDJA KNO, please subscribe to my mailing list.
in it, i'm going to be sharing with you...
- my powerful secrets for movie watching.
- the 5 things you MUST know in order to make a zillion dollars in just 1 day with no work (lol it's so easy, you'll be SHOCKED)
- the secret formula to achieving true love and happiness in life

regards,
bolly.

PS -
this is not a weird fetish thing, i promise.

Last edited by teh b0lly!!1 : 07-21-2016 at 04:13 PM.

 
teh b0lly!!1 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2016, 06:03 AM   #122
teh b0lly!!1
Socialphobic
 
teh b0lly!!1's Avatar
 
Location: Your soul
Posts: 14,349
Default

Lost River

ryan gosling's directorial debut. not really that strong a selling point for me, but i got the impression it was a weird one (can't remember who talked about it on here) so i got curious.

it tries really hard to be arty and profoud, and goes for a lot of "nice shots" visually, but it's real hard getting through this one. on my first try i managed to get through about an hour before falling asleep, but i was intrigued by what i heard about it and uncharacteristically went back and started watching again from scratch.

it makes very little sense, while simultaneously being overly simplistic and shallow in other aspects. it seems like as a piece, it's much more concerned with stitching together (not necessarily coherently) visual moments, influences, and an atmposphere (whatever that may be), rather than telling a story.

obviously there are some artists who can pull this off very well (david lynch, whom this movie shamelessly rips off , for example), but for gosling it just comes off as one step too many towards self indulgence, rather than forming an actual narrative, and not an excuse to get all your wicked shots down to tape.

the movie does boast decent performances from christina hendrix (who i assume gosling pulled his way after working with her on Drive), and both actors playing the villains, whose obscure names i can't be bothered to look up right now. one of those villains, btw, is called Bully - total rolleye, see my note about shallow writing - but is actually a pretty fucked up, weird, terrifying character. gotta give credit where credit is due.

perhaps the biggest flaw in this movie is the aimless, wandering storytelling. only upon reading the plot synopsis later on, i filled in some gaps and realized i had missed some mildly significant plot developments that simply get lost along the way, because the pacing and editing is so glacial and non compelling. it simply doesn't cease your attention when it needs to, on multiple instances - because it's either poorly conceived, poorly filmed, or poorly edited.

pretty weak overall impression. wouldn't really recommended it. stick to being an annoyingly privileged white dude with hot abs, ryan.

Last edited by teh b0lly!!1 : 07-24-2016 at 09:45 AM.

 
teh b0lly!!1 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2016, 06:38 PM   #123
vixnix
Socialphobic
 
vixnix's Avatar
 
Location: That God you believe in must have had his head right up his arse if he took Luke and not you instead
Posts: 10,242
Default

I enjoyed this, but I didn't expect anything profound - I expected it to be cheap and shallow, so the fact that it was in many parts, didn't affect my enjoyment of the more interesting parts. I think it was a solid debut - I'll watch his next effort if he tries again. He did effectively create for me an atmosphere of hopelessness and desolation, and the club, with that horrible plastic shell, that will stay with me forever. I had never even considered that there are places like that out there.

 
vixnix is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2016, 01:21 AM   #124
teh b0lly!!1
Socialphobic
 
teh b0lly!!1's Avatar
 
Location: Your soul
Posts: 14,349
Default

i assumed it's entirely fictional. is there really stuff like that in real life?

christina hendrix cutting her face off to a cheering crowd was pretty effective

 
teh b0lly!!1 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2016, 12:00 PM   #125
teh b0lly!!1
Socialphobic
 
teh b0lly!!1's Avatar
 
Location: Your soul
Posts: 14,349
Default

Only God Forgives



i shouldn't really post a seperate "review" for this, because i could just copy-paste most of what i wrote about Lost River, which was also, coincidentally, a Gosling effort. i wanted to watch this one because i kinda liked the dark stylishness of Drive, also a film by Refn (starring... err... ryan gosling... no bro crush, i swear)

anyway get a load of this. Refn has gone on record stating that this film is a "thriller produced as a western, all in the far east, with a modern cowboy hero". that says it all, really. it's like a parody on a particularly self indulgent Tarantino quote.

like in Lost River, the basic story for this film is a very plain and even generic story (gosling's bro gets murdered, family seeks revenge), that tries to find it's merit and unique "voice" through intentionally obtuse presentation and storytelling choices. it prides itself on being "STRANGE" instead of having it happen naturally, or because it needs to.

more than anything else, it just feels like a construct that was made as to enable Refn to stitch together some visual ideas and half-baked characters, into a story that doesn't really make sense. as a film, it is based on a whole lot of assuming that the audience will "get it" (a common trait in overly self absorbed films, i find). but it falls short, because its inner logic and idiosyncrasies is not something that just presents itself to the viewer. 8 times out of 10, if you need to read about a movie to get what it was going for, that means it failed. and this one isn't in the 2/10.

also, it doesn't really have any justification as seperate piece, and even more so, as a follow up to Drive. it's basically the same film, just much more obscure and disjointed. specifically, the character gosling plays in both is virtually the same. he kind of aspires to be this modern era clint eastwood, this cold ass dude with hyper-swagger, but he just don't have that going for him. he looks too much like a hollywood boy. not a very good actor. i'm not buying him being some crime lord. fuck that.

but i mean, despite all that, you can tell Refn is good at what he does. those shots he gets ARE beautiful. the surreal-ness of it IS, at times, compelling (or at least interesting). he essentially goes for an arthouse, avant-garde kind of deal, i guess, so perhaps it is my own wish for a more coherent narrative that is misplaced. you can't listen to an indie record and blame it for not being post punk enough, right. you do have to admire the dude's boldness, though. he welds pretty hard violence, surreal dreamscape, odd pacing, and bizzare filmmaking choices in a way that oozes confidence, and integrity. he doesn't try to be accessible. i can't say it made for an enjoyable watching experience, but at least it's not a TMNT remake (post punk lol). well at this point this is probably one of those endless walls of text forever floating about in the infinite space of the internet, that nobody is ever going to read all the way through. it's kinda nice being all by myself up here. hello----hello---hello. netphoria has been really sad for a while now and barely anyone is posting at all and i'm kinda wondering what it's going to be like not having this place anymore once it shuts down. should i just quit. i probably should. i'll miss this place tho. fuckknuckle. 这******************影******************喜欢。
***************************来*********海。

Last edited by teh b0lly!!1 : 07-29-2016 at 01:19 PM.

 
teh b0lly!!1 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2016, 01:29 PM   #126
Elphenor
Socialphobic
 
Elphenor's Avatar
 
Location: Lizzy Mercier Descloux
Posts: 13,147
Default

Funny enough I think it's the "coherent narrative" part that I don't really like about movies. Also actors and acting in general

I could probably dig films that are just a mess of ideas and disorientating images though this movie doesn't sound like enough of that to be appealing

 
Elphenor is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2016, 01:31 PM   #127
yo soy el mejor
Just Hook it to My Veins!
 
yo soy el mejor's Avatar
 
Location: spiceworld
Posts: 40,252
Default

do you like 70s speakers?

 
yo soy el mejor is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2016, 01:40 PM   #128
teh b0lly!!1
Socialphobic
 
teh b0lly!!1's Avatar
 
Location: Your soul
Posts: 14,349
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphenor View Post
Funny enough I think it's the "coherent narrative" part that I don't really like about movies. Also actors and acting in general

I could probably dig films that are just a mess of ideas and disorientating images though this movie doesn't sound like enough of that to be appealing
haha i did mention post punk.

i mean, i most definitely don't seek to force some old fashioned idea of what cinema should be on movies i watch. i absolutely do enjoy bizarre films that you can get completely lost in, but they have to be worth it.

i think Under The Skin was the last one i watched that really was far from conventional narrative. it's still one of my all time favs. cannot wait for jonathan glazer's next release.

Last edited by teh b0lly!!1 : 07-29-2016 at 04:45 PM.

 
teh b0lly!!1 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2016, 02:31 PM   #129
redbreegull
Immortal
 
redbreegull's Avatar
 
Location: we are the new age of whatever
Posts: 25,621
Default

is this thread just for teh b0lly or is it common use? do we still use the other movie thread



Spring Breakers

I don't really know how to rate this movie. I felt ready to turn it off after 15 minutes but suddenly the movie was over and I had sat through the whole thing. Really leaves you with a "what did I just watch" feeling. I am tempted to say it was absolutely terrible but it also has this magnetic quality that did not allow me to avert my eyes. The whole thing is very dreamlike and events seem to just run into each other with seemingly missing pieces, sort of like the actual experience of going on a two week bender at the beach. As the "plot" progresses, shit gets crazier and crazier but it just seems normal. The protagonists seemingly have absolutely no sense of morality... they are basically empty, over-privileged husks of people attempting to free themselves of the boredom and sensory deprivation of already having everything you could want. In this way I'm not sure whether the film was some sort of social commentary or just a weirdo stylistic experiment aiming for cult status.

 
redbreegull is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2016, 02:37 PM   #130
teh b0lly!!1
Socialphobic
 
teh b0lly!!1's Avatar
 
Location: Your soul
Posts: 14,349
Default

this thread is definitely not for common use. you totally invaded my safe space.

see the title? it says "TEH BOLLY confessional movie review ghost thread".

movie discussions are fine tho.

 
teh b0lly!!1 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2016, 02:41 PM   #131
cork_soaker
full of longing
 
cork_soaker's Avatar
 
Posts: 9,962
Default

bolly, pls watch and review "the lobster"

i have my opinions but yours entertain me more

 
cork_soaker is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2016, 02:42 PM   #132
teh b0lly!!1
Socialphobic
 
teh b0lly!!1's Avatar
 
Location: Your soul
Posts: 14,349
Default

i reviewed Spring Breakers at one point.
it's a great mood piece.

it's one of those movies where the plot isn't really supposed to be spectacular, and it obviously indulges in objectification of hot women just a little bit too much to pass as an artistic statement (or being in good taste in general), but the hazy neon glow that oozes from it is enchanting. more than anything else that movie aims to make you feel a certain way, and it's a total success at that. i still remember being blown away at how Franco's character launches into Everytime by Britney Spears - a flawless choice that matches the tone of the film perfectly (though the execution on that particular sequence was a bit lacking, unfortunately).

 
teh b0lly!!1 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2016, 02:45 PM   #133
teh b0lly!!1
Socialphobic
 
teh b0lly!!1's Avatar
 
Location: Your soul
Posts: 14,349
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cork_soaker View Post
bolly, pls watch and review "the lobster"

i have my opinions but yours entertain me more
i just read about this and got really worked up and then found out Colin Farrell is the lead :/

i definitely will though - probably soon (meeting a LOT of my professional cyclist friends in Florida shortly)

 
teh b0lly!!1 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2016, 02:47 PM   #134
cork_soaker
full of longing
 
cork_soaker's Avatar
 
Posts: 9,962
Default

thanks

 
cork_soaker is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2016, 03:09 PM   #135
redbreegull
Immortal
 
redbreegull's Avatar
 
Location: we are the new age of whatever
Posts: 25,621
Default

Jason Bourne – C

You know when a band in their later career releases a self-titled album and everyone knows it's gonna be like ehhhhhhh. This is that. A pale imitation of the earlier films and a blatant contrived excuse to cash in again on the franchise. Of course the action sequences are extremely well done, but by the end shit was just so crazy it seemed like a parody. There is a car chase at the end that is basically a live-action round of GTA V. There was also far too much dialogue. Sike, there was almost no dialogue in this movie at all and I'm not sure anyone said anything in the first half hour. As always, there are plenty of cool shots of foreign locales... the Greek riot at Syntagma made me smile to myself because it was like an insanely hyperbolic version of the riot I accidentally ran into there. The movie is very topical... cybersecurity and privacy on the web are driving forces to the plot, but it's almost too much. It feels too rooted in 2016. Also the CIA woman looks 22 but apparently has a phd and is the head of their cybersecurity department? I think not. I would describe the movie as a "romp." Fun to watch, but there is nothing else going on here.

 
redbreegull is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2016, 03:14 PM   #136
redbreegull
Immortal
 
redbreegull's Avatar
 
Location: we are the new age of whatever
Posts: 25,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teh b0lly!!1 View Post
i reviewed Spring Breakers at one point.
it's a great mood piece.

it's one of those movies where the plot isn't really supposed to be spectacular, and it obviously indulges in objectification of hot women just a little bit too much to pass as an artistic statement (or being in good taste in general), but the hazy neon glow that oozes from it is enchanting. more than anything else that movie aims to make you feel a certain way, and it's a total success at that. i still remember being blown away at how Franco's character launches into Everytime by Britney Spears - a flawless choice that matches the tone of the film perfectly (though the execution on that particular sequence was a bit lacking, unfortunately).
Haha I totally forgot about that part tbh, I was kind of drunk when I watched it. It's definitely an "atmospheric" movie. It's all about creating a certain mood, a certain feeling, and in that it is pretty successful. By most of the markers which I usually judge movies with, it sucks, but like I said there is a lot of indescribable magnetism going on where you just can't look away.

 
redbreegull is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2016, 07:49 PM   #137
buzzard
Apocalyptic Poster
 
buzzard's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,849
Default

Keep in mind that Spring Breakers was the work of a notorious provocateur, regarded at the height of his career for being possibly too in-touch with the youth of the day for the comfort of the wider audience.

Sadly, however, I feel that whatever insight Korine might have had to offer has since been swapped out for a significantly less sophisticated and general desire to shock, whether this is meant to catalyze some sort of discussion or possibly just to push his product. As far as I am concerned, the entire project peaked at its casting and failed to fire beyond that.

 
buzzard is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2016, 08:47 AM   #138
teh b0lly!!1
Socialphobic
 
teh b0lly!!1's Avatar
 
Location: Your soul
Posts: 14,349
Default

Trainspotting 2 buzz is really starting to kick in. been seeing stub articles about it here and there, and even a 5 second sneak peek trailer or something.

i'm pretty anxious about this. not to say a bit scared. i know how dumb this may sound, but this truly is one movie that i don't want to be wrecked in the name of money or old people riding the nostalgia train. it's even being dubbed T2, which only triggers associations to the horrendously butchered, pimped and sodomized Terminator name.

i'm really hoping it will actually have something interesting to say, like the original one did, rather than just being an assortment of winks and homages to 'lol good times' from the first movie. so far, based on the trailers i'd seen, it's leaning towards the latter, unfortunately. one trailer features the same shot of the four boys after they get off the train, standing on the platform in the windy scottish landscape, and another promo shot i just saw is spud and renton running in the street, just like in the iconic opening sequence. i mean, is it too much to ask of this movie not to become self aware, and start tooting its own horn? it would be just awful. this isn't just some action movie, it's an actual piece of art that means something to me.

i wanna say if all of them are on board, that probably means there's something good there, but in showbiz as ppl get older they are far more likely to compromise their integrity for the sake of meeting their old pals and relishing in that familiar success once again. let's just hope that's not the case here. ok off to watch the new Michael Bay TMNT, later guys.

 
teh b0lly!!1 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2016, 02:51 AM   #139
teh b0lly!!1
Socialphobic
 
teh b0lly!!1's Avatar
 
Location: Your soul
Posts: 14,349
Default

The Lobster



( )

oh god, where do i even start with this one.
it's certainly one of the top films i'd watched for quite a while.

i'm just going to start rambling about stuff i liked.

Colin Farrell. when i first noticed that it's a CF film i was apprehensive, because i never really liked him as an actor, nor his movies (perhaps i'd just seen the wrong ones). well, i officially take it back. he strayed so far from his usual hotshot typecast, and actually performed admirably well. he's so mild. awkward. fat. meek. he put on 40 pounds for this role - that's commitment. as an actor, he operates on a very low emotional scale in this movie, and he sort of finds his range within that. in a film that deals with so many people who seemingly underwent soul sterilization, it's evident that he does feel - but it's like a dying flame. almost out, but not quite. i reckon that as an actor, it's fairly difficult to portray a three dimensional character in a world where the strongest response you'll ever see from someone, by a margin, is that of pain or fear of pain. but like i said, i thought he did it very well.

technically speaking, this movie is astounding. not astounding in a Game Of Thrones type way - but it's so incredibly rich, textured and nuanced. the cinematography is flawless. the whole visual style on this is arresting, creative, lyrical, and many times, poetically symbolic. i read that they almost exclusively used natural lighting (apart from like a scene or two at night), and that was such an intelligent choice, from an obviously intelligent filmmaker. it makes everything feel so earthy, toned down, and real. you can almost smell it. early on in the film, it triggered this strange ghost of a feeling in me of something i used to feel all the time, but don't anymore. i can't even put my own finger on it. it felt strange. anyway, it's beautifully composed. detailed and compelling. the sound work is top notch too.

oh yeah, another thing. people seem to treat this movie as a comedy, or comedy-drama. i think i caught some review stubs on rottentomatoes that called it "wickedly funny". this is unfathomable to me. yes, obviously it is absurdist in nature, and it sort of satirizes the way people seek out companionship in the modern age, but wow. fuck me. how on earth can this be funny to you? it is heavy, distressing, and bleak. it's like saying Black Mirror is hilarious. not every exaggeration of reality is comical by nature, and those reviewers are missing the point so bad, it's kind of impressive, really.

moving on. the script and storytelling work is way up there with the best surrealist works of fiction i'd ever watched or read. there's a rare abundance of quality ideas here, and that truly gives the whole story an inescapable, oppressive feeling of scope and credence. usually when a story is that "out there", you can see the edges - you can see where it starts, where it's going, where it ends. how thick it is. like a backdrop. you can 'see' the creative process: the writer had a wonderfully strange idea, they put it to page, expanded upon it, fleshed it out into a bigger arc, etc. but here, what i thought would consist of the entire story arc, was basically only the first 1/3 of the movie. it continually develops and changes, and mercilessly introduces more and more rules and concepts to the dystopian world it lives in, and it all stays true to some bizarre inner logic that has this incredible gravitational pull. when the writing is not good enough (in other works, that is), you can always tell the cutoff point between where the original good idea ends, and the sewed-on additions begin. here it just feels like one continuous streak - like you'd been dropped into that terrifying world, given a glimpse, and then taken out once the film ends. this is like a much cooler, much more bizarre, and less dad version of a charlie kaufman script, basically. it has you exactly where it wants you - you get what's going on, you have a grasp on what's happening, but you're sort of running parallel to it. you never quite know where it's going to go.

i guess there's also something to be said about the way the movie denies the viewer of gratification, or feelings of catharsis. spoilers ahead: we never know what animal David turns the heartless woman into, we don't know what happens with the nosebleed couple after David lifts the veil off the lies their relationship is based on, and of course - the movie ends abruptly, and leaves the question of David and the blind woman's future completely unresolved. for a minute there i thought the sight of Colin Farrell gauging his eyes out with a steak knife is going to scar me for life. my normal tendency is to want closure, i guess, but with every other facet of this film being so profound, i absolutely get it, and respect that it's a valid stylistic choice. in a negative world, where everything is seemingly backwards, why would it make sense to provide traditional closures? it's like looking at a diary either as a journal of things you choose to document, or alternatively, of the things you choose to keep out. in that way, it makes perfect sense. still though, i was sorry that it was over.

i could keep going. i should probably wrap it up.
oh yeah, one last thing: throughout the film, i couldn't help but think how i fucking love that this was a cork soaker rec. it makes so much sense, and i say that in the best possible way. there is definitely a link between your music and everything that this film is about, though i don't know if i can put it down into words. especially your last piece that i pm'd you about. i feel that the organic nature of what you do in order to produce your recordings (i.e not aiming for a specific end result, the process itself being the goal, letting things evolve on their own terms without 'interference') is sort of reflected in that movie in script form, if that makes any sense at all. the film is obviously more layered and incisive, but both send me to the same emotional space. like they're from the same world. thanks for this. if you managed to survive this embarrassing wall of text, i'd love some more movie recommendations from you.

Last edited by teh b0lly!!1 : 08-02-2016 at 06:29 AM.

 
teh b0lly!!1 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2016, 01:38 PM   #140
cork_soaker
full of longing
 
cork_soaker's Avatar
 
Posts: 9,962
Default

del oops

Last edited by cork_soaker : 08-02-2016 at 02:00 PM.

 
cork_soaker is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2016, 01:43 PM   #141
FoolofaTook
Braindead
 
FoolofaTook's Avatar
 
Location: The Walla Wallaean Vale
Posts: 16,067
Default

trainspotting 2?

HOLY FUCKBALLS

 
FoolofaTook is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2016, 01:44 PM   #142
Cool As Ice Cream
Immortal
 
Cool As Ice Cream's Avatar
 
Location: František! How's the foot of your turtle?
Posts: 29,100
Default

FUCKY HOLEBALLS

 
Cool As Ice Cream is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2016, 01:46 PM   #143
teh b0lly!!1
Socialphobic
 
teh b0lly!!1's Avatar
 
Location: Your soul
Posts: 14,349
Default

BAWLY FUCK HOLES

 
teh b0lly!!1 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2016, 02:00 PM   #144
cork_soaker
full of longing
 
cork_soaker's Avatar
 
Posts: 9,962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teh b0lly!!1 View Post
The Lobster



( )

oh god, where do i even start with this one.
it's certainly one of the top films i'd watched for quite a while.

i'm just going to start rambling about stuff i liked.

Colin Farrell. when i first noticed that it's a CF film i was apprehensive, because i never really liked him as an actor, nor his movies (perhaps i'd just seen the wrong ones). well, i officially take it back. he strayed so far from his usual hotshot typecast, and actually performed admirably well. he's so mild. awkward. fat. meek. he put on 40 pounds for this role - that's commitment. as an actor, he operates on a very low emotional scale in this movie, and he sort of finds his range within that. in a film that deals with so many people who seemingly underwent soul sterilization, it's evident that he does feel - but it's like a dying flame. almost out, but not quite. i reckon that as an actor, it's fairly difficult to portray a three dimensional character in a world where the strongest response you'll ever see from someone, by a margin, is that of pain or fear of pain. but like i said, i thought he did it very well.

technically speaking, this movie is astounding. not astounding in a Game Of Thrones type way - but it's so incredibly rich, textured and nuanced. the cinematography is flawless. the whole visual style on this is arresting, creative, lyrical, and many times, poetically symbolic. i read that they almost exclusively used natural lighting (apart from like a scene or two at night), and that was such an intelligent choice, from an obviously intelligent filmmaker. it makes everything feel so earthy, toned down, and real. you can almost smell it. early on in the film, it triggered this strange ghost of a feeling in me of something i used to feel all the time, but don't anymore. i can't even put my own finger on it. it felt strange. anyway, it's beautifully composed. detailed and compelling. the sound work is top notch too.

oh yeah, another thing. people seem to treat this movie as a comedy, or comedy-drama. i think i caught some review stubs on rottentomatoes that called it "wickedly funny". this is unfathomable to me. yes, obviously it is absurdist in nature, and it sort of satirizes the way people seek out companionship in the modern age, but wow. fuck me. how on earth can this be funny to you? it is heavy, distressing, and bleak. it's like saying Black Mirror is hilarious. not every exaggeration of reality is comical by nature, and those reviewers are missing the point so bad, it's kind of impressive, really.

moving on. the script and storytelling work is way up there with the best surrealist works of fiction i'd ever watched or read. there's a rare abundance of quality ideas here, and that truly gives the whole story an inescapable, oppressive feeling of scope and credence. usually when a story is that "out there", you can see the edges - you can see where it starts, where it's going, where it ends. how thick it is. like a backdrop. you can 'see' the creative process: the writer had a wonderfully strange idea, they put it to page, expanded upon it, fleshed it out into a bigger arc, etc. but here, what i thought would consist of the entire story arc, was basically only the first 1/3 of the movie. it continually develops and changes, and mercilessly introduces more and more rules and concepts to the dystopian world it lives in, and it all stays true to some bizarre inner logic that has this incredible gravitational pull. when the writing is not good enough (in other works, that is), you can always tell the cutoff point between where the original good idea ends, and the sewed-on additions begin. here it just feels like one continuous streak - like you'd been dropped into that terrifying world, given a glimpse, and then taken out once the film ends. this is like a much cooler, much more bizarre, and less dad version of a charlie kaufman script, basically. it has you exactly where it wants you - you get what's going on, you have a grasp on what's happening, but you're sort of running parallel to it. you never quite know where it's going to go.

i guess there's also something to be said about the way the movie denies the viewer of gratification, or feelings of catharsis. spoilers ahead: we never know what animal David turns the heartless woman into, we don't know what happens with the nosebleed couple after David lifts the veil off the lies their relationship is based on, and of course - the movie ends abruptly, and leaves the question of David and the blind woman's future completely unresolved. for a minute there i thought the sight of Colin Farrell gauging his eyes out with a steak knife is going to scar me for life. my normal tendency is to want closure, i guess, but with every other facet of this film being so profound, i absolutely get it, and respect that it's a valid stylistic choice. in a negative world, where everything is seemingly backwards, why would it make sense to provide traditional closures? it's like looking at a diary either as a journal of things you choose to document, or alternatively, of the things you choose to keep out. in that way, it makes perfect sense. still though, i was sorry that it was over.

i could keep going. i should probably wrap it up.
oh yeah, one last thing: throughout the film, i couldn't help but think how i fucking love that this was a cork soaker rec. it makes so much sense, and i say that in the best possible way. there is definitely a link between your music and everything that this film is about, though i don't know if i can put it down into words. especially your last piece that i pm'd you about. i feel that the organic nature of what you do in order to produce your recordings (i.e not aiming for a specific end result, the process itself being the goal, letting things evolve on their own terms without 'interference') is sort of reflected in that movie in script form, if that makes any sense at all. the film is obviously more layered and incisive, but both send me to the same emotional space. like they're from the same world. thanks for this. if you managed to survive this embarrassing wall of text, i'd love some more movie recommendations from you.
thanks for reviewing! good stuff. enjoyed reading muchly.

i, too, was pleased to see the film sustain itself beyond the "gimmick" -- that is, the concept and rules of the fictitious world, which is more or less what draws the viewer in initially. in this case, the concept of the world is certainly pretty fascinating, especially as the rules are revealed gradually... but the movie thankfully doesn't lean on that alone.

i was also glad to see things literally move beyond the milieu of the hotel and into the broader world. each time we'd push further out was surprising and unpredictable (to me, at least), which was wonderful as a viewer.

agreed on the beautiful cinematography. that's what pulled me in, before i had any idea about the story. interesting about natural lighting being used primarily.

one disappointment was the voiceover narration. it always feels tasteless to me... perhaps directorial laziness or not trusting in one's audience enough. but a fairly minor complaint.

prior to watching this, i'd had nothing but disdain for colin farrell. but he was great here.

anyway, i might recommend Ida. maybe the most gorgeous movie to me, visually. the composition of every scene is lovely. fairly bleak story. but good.

 
cork_soaker is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2016, 02:46 PM   #145
cork_soaker
full of longing
 
cork_soaker's Avatar
 
Posts: 9,962
Default

"dizzyingly funny" it says, in the promo poster above

hm

 
cork_soaker is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2016, 04:24 PM   #146
teh b0lly!!1
Socialphobic
 
teh b0lly!!1's Avatar
 
Location: Your soul
Posts: 14,349
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cork_soaker View Post
one disappointment was the voiceover narration. it always feels tasteless to me... perhaps directorial laziness or not trusting in one's audience enough. but a fairly minor complaint.

prior to watching this, i'd had nothing but disdain for colin farrell. but he was great here.

anyway, i might recommend Ida. maybe the most gorgeous movie to me, visually. the composition of every scene is lovely. fairly bleak story. but good.
i kind of agree about the voice over thing. and the thing is, it wasn't really anchored and robust, tone wise, as voiceovers usually are - it was kind of shaky and almost hysterical in delivery, which felt odd. objectively i can't say i was a big fan of that, but every other aspect in the film is so skillfully handled, i just chalked it up to pure artistic choice. i respect it. if that's what's there, that's what the director was going for.

anyway, thanks! added Ida to my list.

watched a total cumstain of a film tonight. it basically felt like eating shit. i'm almost pissed off about how fucking terrible it was. i'll rave about it tomorrow.

 
teh b0lly!!1 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2016, 06:01 AM   #147
teh b0lly!!1
Socialphobic
 
teh b0lly!!1's Avatar
 
Location: Your soul
Posts: 14,349
Default

tHE iNVITATION



oh my god, look guys! what a threatening poster! it's A GLASS OF WINE. holy shit! this movie must be hella scary!

if you'd been following the bollyblog, you know i use the fUCKED uP lettering style for especially terrible thrillers/horror diarrheas. after being blown away by The Lobster, i googled it along with "best films" to find out what the critiques were praising as the best films of 2015/16. if The Lobster is on that list, it can't be that bad, right?

WRONG! *blast*
(that was an arnold voice in case anyone missed the reference)

two major quips:
A. why do rottentomatoes ratings have to be so goddamn rotten like a SHIT COVERED CORPSE INFUSED WITH PUKING AIDS MAGGOTS AND USED TAMPONS FOR FUCK'S SAKE. that site is so fucking unreliable it's hilarious. i know it's an aggregate site so spare me the fucking brainy explanation docs, but there is just NO EXCUSE for this movie getting 90% on any site. movie reviewers these days should fucking go die in a CANCEROUS FIRE.

B. why do horror films (and i use this term loosly [i say this good heartedly]) must be so fucking terrible? is it really that impossible to produce a decent, intelligent, horror movie? must they all be steaming piles of shitty cliches, atrocious acting and a plot that is complete fucking BILE? history says the horror genre is by far the most difficult genre to master. if anyone has recommendations for genuinely good horror flicks shoot em my way, will ya?

ok let's get started shall we. OH YES U HERD RIGHT I AIN'T EVEN GOT STARTED YET.
literally from the FIRST SHOT in this piece of shit i knew it was going to be horrible. the protagonist (who i'll rip on in a second, patience) is driving a car with his token black gf, it's all wEiRD and hAzY and she asks him: "you didn't answer... i asked if you were okay???"

RIGHT THERE - if there is one motherfucking thing i hate about movies and shows, it's THIS sickening brand of campy and expository dialogue. why not just fucking build up the scene, and have her voice asking him that question in an all nice and reverby kind of way, and then cut to the douchebag seeming disoriented, and then have her crisply ask "hey, are you ok?". BUT NO! let's force this stupid dumbass token character to talk strangely in a way people don't talk in, and impose the narrative on the viewer instead of having them experience it themselves.

this disease is spread all throughout the film like black diarrhea spray on a fresh toilet after a big bowl of rotten seafood with bad mayonaise on it. everything is unnatural and synthetic to a simply astounding degree. people behave and talk in mindblowingly fake and obtuse ways, simply because the shitty script rapes them into doing it. nothing fucking makes sense in this movie, not one decision that any character makes at any given point, is justifiable by any human standard of what is normal society.

this "movie" essentially feels like it's a piece of shit excercise for movie class in highschool, whose sole purpose is practicing SUSPENSION BUILDING through the excessive and unintelligent usage of ANY CLICHE EVER BEATEN TO DEATH in shitty thriller history. it's literally just one long string of generic, textbook, paper-thin scenes building up some "ambiguous", "paranoid" suspense towards something THAT WE ALL FUCKING KNOW IS COMING. SO JUST GET THE FUCKKK ON WITH IT

ok wait sorry i got carried away. i promised to rip on the "protagonist". he ain't no protagonist, god knows he antagonized me lololo! anyway this douchebag is some Tom Hardy doppleganger cunt. he literally looks exactly like him, it's uncanny. check this out:



and this guy's REAL name is no less than LOGAN MARSHALL. how could there honestly be a real person looking like this and named LOGAN MARSHALL. check out this fucking douchebag everyone. he's all manly and comic book character-y and his first name is Wolverine and his last name is that of the renowned burly ampmaker. needless to say he's a complete flaccid ballsack of an actor, and cries like a little bitch at least 10 times throughout the movie. not very manly, LOGAN.

TO CONCLUDE:
this movie is as shitty as they come. as i said, i realized literally from the first shot that it was going to be a piece of shit, but made a concious decision to hatewatch. but it's not even good enough for that. it tries hard to have high production values and look slick, but that only makes it worse. it's like spraying a really horrible bathroom fragrance after taking a shit that smelled like death. the attempt to cover it up with sweet coco vanilla only makes it even more sickening. what a fucking piece of shit.

ok i need to chill


Last edited by teh b0lly!!1 : 08-03-2016 at 07:24 AM.

 
teh b0lly!!1 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2016, 06:26 AM   #148
Cool As Ice Cream
Immortal
 
Cool As Ice Cream's Avatar
 
Location: František! How's the foot of your turtle?
Posts: 29,100
Default

lol

 
Cool As Ice Cream is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2016, 10:33 AM   #149
cork_soaker
full of longing
 
cork_soaker's Avatar
 
Posts: 9,962
Default

fantastic

 
cork_soaker is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2016, 11:05 AM   #150
yo soy el mejor
Just Hook it to My Veins!
 
yo soy el mejor's Avatar
 
Location: spiceworld
Posts: 40,252
Default

boy, i dunno what you're on about. the invitation was badass.

 
yo soy el mejor is offline
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Google


Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So when is Jimmy coming back? Elphenor Smashing Pumpkins/Billy Corgan Discussion 21 02-17-2016 05:58 PM
Something I have noticed... rottenugly General Chat Archive 38 04-17-2012 03:25 PM
my very original ask me questions thread dr.benway General Chat Archive 27 08-04-2009 04:26 PM
I didn't realize people on this board were actually smashing pumpkin fans. I Ate My Hamster General Chat Archive 29 06-12-2007 10:49 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:59 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Smashing Pumpkins, Alternative Music
& General Discussion Message Board and Forums
www.netphoria.org - Copyright © 1998-2014