It appears he gets it. Hopefully this is an indication that Shyamalan is pulling a Richard Linklater and doing a project to earn him some capital to return to his more esoteric style of filmmaking. *fingers crossed*
“I want to make tonal movies where the plot is almost obscene,” continues Shyamalan as the lights go down. “In fact, I think I get in trouble because my movies are presented as plot driven vehicles, so I’m perceived more for that characteristic when in reality my tastes are more here, more like Kubrick and [Antonioni’s] Blow-Up.”
Any thoughts as to whether there's significance to the motif of child performers in this movie? You have the snobby kid who's in commercials, the school plays, the sick girl performing with hand puppets before a camcorder, and the ghost of Cole's grandma relaying a story of his mother's recital as a little girl. It seems obvious that there's an intent behind it but I'm not really sure why.
"Life finds away." Creation isn't an act of sheer will but of biological necessity. Just as the dinosaurs evolve to breed, do does Dr. Grant. A movie about how futile it is to try to control nature. It still kicks ass twenty years later.
Seems to be the third in a spiritual trilogy following Zodiac and The Social Network. So much of his cinema is devoted to conveying information through print, photographs, computer screens, etc. Fincher has a real gift of communicating exposition in a way that's energetic and cinematic.
This is the superhero of movie of 2008 that actually subverts the genre. Del Toro deliberately sets Hellboy up as the defender of mundane things--bureaucrats, shoppers and strip malls and so forth. Hellboy's pitted against an ancient fantastical creature, and the audience cheers when Hellboy kills it. I also love the use of art direction to subliminally tell the story of Liz Sherman concealing her pregnancy.
A master of suspense just beginning to hit her stride.
The outcry against this has been lazy. I recently sat down and watched the film, aware of the debate, standing firmly against the use of these enhanced interrogation techniques, and ready to scrutinize the film for being irresponsible. By the end, I found a film that was not exploitative but instead eager raise ethical questions that spur discussion.
It does not advocate the use of torture. The CIA operatives waste years torturing a Al Qaeda agent in order to produce a name they already had. Yes, it depicts the methods working to some extent--the prisoner does eventually break. However, the film presents a more nuanced look at torture than the publicity might have you believe. Yes, torture produced a result but a minor one that took years, and at what cost?
It is only when the use of torture is forbidden by the executive branch that the protagonist has to result to some actual investigative work. The film seems to say we can still win without losing the moral high ground, and that when we give in to these darker tendencies, we become indistinguishable from our enemies.
Whereas Star Trek featured lens flares that were motivated by its setting and art direction, in Super 8 it's not as clear why they're so prevalent. That is until you get to the end credits and see the movie within the movie. This is a film that celebrates the imperfections found even in flicks of the highest production value. I love its earnestness.
The ending--with the goth girl dressed like a prep, the rebel on the football team, and the geek dating the sexy school newspaper girl all while an upbeat 90s tune plays telling us everything's happy now--is either infuriatingly shallow, or, considering the central theme of conformity, an excellent and true horror movie ending.
Hyper editing that borders on surreal. Takes the kinetic, dense-with-information-that-constantly-flies-at-your-face style of JFK to a whole new level. The movie effectively puts you in Nixon's paranoid mind for 3.5 hours, and it flies by. My personal favorite of Stone's. It haunts me.
Uses imagery and narration simply to evoke emotion, as oppose to moving the plot forward. It's only plot point, occurring at the center of the film, has that much more of an impact because it's cushioned by almost nothing but photographic moments.
This came out around the same time as I'm Not There, the Bob Dylan sorta-biopic. I remember thinking at the time that they made great companion pieces on celebrity worship, specifically the myth versus the reality of a famous person's life. The casting of Brad Pitt in this is brilliant. He brought all the baggage his fame carries with him, totally elevating the stature of Jesse James.
3.5 Stars. I really loved Adam Scott's dark as hell performance. I related to it until every character turned out to be completely detestable.
I see Mel Gibson having a second life as a 21st century equivalent to Charles Bronson. With the face of Henry Fonda.
This was playing last week as a double feature with Mulholland Drive at the Castro Theatre in San Francisco. An appropriate pairing I think.
Excellent and frightening British horror. I'm surprised by how few have seen it, because I think it deserves as much regard as similar movies from the period like The Thing From Another World, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and The Blob.
Amazing actor and a joy in person. I wish he would get more A-list roles. I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to work with him a couple years ago.
I had faith in Webb--particularly because of (500) Days of Summer, which I really dug--and this was at least competently made. The two lead actors were great, and I think Garfield has serious potential in the role. But other than that, it didn't have personality, unlike the previous three films. And the more grounded tone clashed with the pulp comic book premise. This movie never moved me like Sam Raimi's ones did.
I saw this for the first time in one sitting (I'd seen it in multiple sittings on TV) at San Francisco's Castro Theatre, projected in 70mm. That was a year ago. I haven't seen it since, and yet this movie hasn't left my mind. I'd re-watch it, but nothing could ever compare to that last presentation, so I'm always on the lookout for it being projected somewhere.
I've seen this in theaters three times--once in IMAX 3D, one in standard projection, and again in 3D. It's rare that I give a movie $40+ this quickly. I'm in love with the mood, the score, the art direction and the cast. However, I wish it was more self-contained. I don't like the a sequel tease, suggesting answers to questions later. Linking it to Alien seemed superfluous, other than use of Giger's designs.
Scott's eye for design is just as present now as it was during the days of Alien and Blade Runner. I've read a lot of people pointing out the plot holes and weird character behaviors, but it's whatever. Scott knows sci-fi and this is a sci-fi horror with ideas, even if they're not particularly groundbreaking, that put in the tradition of the Golden Age of sci-fi. I had a physical reaction to a lot of the scares too.
Visually amazing, with some of the best surrealist fantasy imagery I've seen in a mainstream film since Bram Stoker's Dracula. That said, the movie did not provoke any sort of emotional response from me, largely due to Kristen Stewart's inability to be believable in anything, and to the tone being so deathly somber throughout. Hemsworth is great, though, and the film shines during its moments of levity.
I went in with cautiously optimistic expectations after revisiting Marvel Studios' films this week, which is a mixed bag at best. This movie does drag on with the exposition and the buildup, and it has plenty of cheese, but the payoff. . . . the last hour of this movie grabbed me and didn't let go. And I found myself getting a little misty eyed during the third act just by the pure joy and excitement of it all.
I've been trying to watch this for the past two years its been since I first read about it. Does anyone have a clue as to why it's out of print? Was a DVD even released?
Another underrated flick by Paul Verhoeven.
McTiernan's masterpiece? I think so, although I haven't seen Nomads or Rollerball. On top of subverting his usual themes and being an excellent love letter to Rashomon (I particularly love the perpetual downpour), it's probably the most cinematic whodunit I've ever seen.
Very underrated. There was something kind of powerful and incredibly timely about the juxtaposition of blissful consumer culture with the horrific violence the death-row prisoners are forced to endure, particularly when Logan Lerman's character is shown images of the consequences of his gaming.
This marks a major leap forward Apatow's work. I only hope the tepid response doesn't make him take a step backwards. A lot of the movie seems autobiographical, which might explain, along with the actors' performances, why so many of the scenes feel authentic. This movie does the best job of trudging a fine line between darkness and sentimentality. The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up were practice.
Some updates on After Earth via Shyamalan's Twitter feed: @MNightShyamalan: "My goal was to make it work as a stage play about a broken family. The sic-fi and spectacle and action and horror should all be the canvass for the stage play . . . I want to be dark like Unbreakable. The dailies have that feel. I'm in a pretty edgy place taste wise."
I didn't know a John Carpenter directed Elvis biopic even existed until recently. The first thing I noticed was how beat for beat, the first act seems to have been borrowed by Walk the Line. Some great visuals (interspersed with some jarring stock footage shots), some corny melodrama, and an uncanny performance by Kurt Russell.