Displaying all 5 comments
Trailers That Use Deleted Scenes Not Present In Finished Films over 3 years ago
I am not a fan of this. I think it is a bit deceiving. I think the trailer is used to publicize a movie and when they show you scenes that aren’t in the movie its false advertising. After all, the trailer is all of, what, 30 seconds? Can they not find 30 seconds of footage from the film that characterizs the film you are going to be seeing? If the trailer is meant to show give you a picture of the movie and entice you to go see it then why should it include shots that aren’t in the film? If the scene was not essential enough to make the 100 minute cut, then why should it make the 30 second cut? Now the technique of making a trailer that is almost entirely composed of material that is not in the film, I have no problem with. In these types of trailers it is made clear that this footage is not material from the film, but rather supplementary material used to get you to go see it. (I can’t think of any example of this but I knowe I have seen it before.)
btw I do hate it when good jokes are put in the trailer and therefore are not as funny when you see the full picture. I also hate it when key plot elements are shown in the trailer, therefore spoiling the movie.
Reactions to Inglourious basterds over 3 years ago
I don’t think its an excuse to say that tarantinos films aren’t driven by coherence or narrative. It doesn’t matter that Tarantino made the film. He doesn’t get a free pass because of other moives he has made. I am going to judge the film against all other films.
If I see a film with no narrative, no coherence, no character development, incongruencies, plot holes, gratuitous violence, lack of depth, weak realiance on voiceover when the story itself can’t do the job (sam jackson scene) and other missteps, I am going to judge it as a bad movie. Just because Tarantino made the film doesn’t mean he gets to be judged by a different measuring stick. I thought the movie was smug. I think he fell in love with himself, his characters and his writing. I think this movie is just an excuse to show it all off, and to me it just doesn’t come together at all. I don’t care that every characters name or discussion topic is a reference to some piece of film history. What does he want a pat on the back for being a film history scholar?
I am not a QT hater. I loved True Romance, Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. Liked Jackie Brown and Kill Bill 1. but he lost me after that. I will say I loved the first scene with Landa and was ready for a return to form from QT, but from there on the movie just seemed to get worse and worse. It all culminated in a final scene that I thought was insulting. The basterds could have been removed form the film and it probably would have been better (after all the film was called inglorious basterds yet they were a mere sidestory and distraction from the main plot of the film). They added little and took much away. The exagerated characicatures were tired as was pitt’s performance in general. It may have been as bad as his performance in Burn After Reading. At this point I don’t care about QT’s eye or his precise editing. If I don’t care about the characters and it goes nowhere then all the technical details are meaningless.I think the film bounced around from character to character, scene to scene, not for the purpose of telling a story, but instead for a chance for QT to sneak in some quick witted dialogue. I don’t think he was successful in moving from the comedic to the dramatic from scene to scene. The film didn’t know what it wanted to be and lacked the power it could have had with a bit more consistency. In the end I was watching my watch waiting for it to end. He wants to make a critique on contemporary film action and violence, but in the end this is all he has to offer in this film. His dialogue can be snappy and amuzing at times but I would have thought by now he would have progressed beyond that.
Bakjwi (Thirst) - Park Chan-wook Discussion over 3 years ago
While this is not Chan Wook Park’s best work I did enjoy it. I liked the comedic tone of the movie. In this way i think it brought something new to the genre without being slapstick like other comedic takes have been. I thought the movie looked great and provided good entertainment value, a bit less complex and more lighthearted than some of his other movies. But I didn’t think it was a masterpiece by any means. I thought it would be darker but did appreciate it for what it was. There were a a few very powerful scenes including the final scene in which there is nothing left to do but burn. I loved Old Boy and Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance. I thought this was in line with Lady Vengeance. I thought both were successful. I think perhaps many of you , like myself, were probably expecting brilliance, as we’ve come accustomed to with Chan Wook Park. In this sense it was a bit of a let down, but I liked it nonetheless.
I agree that the scene with the whales swimming in an ocean of blood could have been left on the cutting room floor.
The Auteurs Best of the Decade Poll Results about 3 years ago
Wow, can’t believe i missed this. I see some great films up there, some of my favorites, but also many that I hated.
Was surprised that neither “you the living” nor “songs from the second floor” made the list. Those were two of the most unique filmgoing experiences of my life. Does an amazing job balancing laugh out loud comedy with extremely emotional moments (sometimes both at the same time).
Good Job on compiling the list.
I still can’t quite say I ‘get’ “Mullholland Drive”.
What is a good introduction to bela tarr? over 1 year ago
I think its a great film, but it might not be his most accessible.
I think A Londoni Ferfi and Werkmeister Harmonies might be better choices due to the fact that they are a bit more ‘plot driven,’ lets say. They will be easier to make it through. Some people won’t have the patience to make it through Turin Horse. At least for the average filmgoer, I would say try one of these 2. But if you are asking about Bela Tarr you probably aren’t an average filmgoer, so you may appreciate Turin Hourse just as much.
Also, not sure if yo want to watch his final film first. It may be a better idea to get acquaineted with his other works before seeing what he chose to leave us with.
I also think Satantango is a bit intimidating due to its length, but otherwise I think it is pretty accesable. Maybe others will disagree. It took me a month to finish it, but it was a great experience nonetheless.