A few films recently watched.

I watched Dead Man with Johnny Depp, I rated it in my own head at a 6/10, and funnily enough when I looked it up on IMDB it was a 6/10.

So I returned to IMDB, to get you all a link, because I had not heard about this film before and neither had anyone I knew that I'd mentioned it to, however when I returned to IMDB today, it was up to a 7.7 out of 10, after being down 9% in popularity this week.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112817/

Wall-E - pretty awesome for what it was... the animation was superb.

Deliverance - re-watched this on blu-ray and it was like running my eyeballs against fine silk. This film never ceases to amaze and I cannot wait to soak my sheets in the many wet dreams I will have of Burt Reynolds tonight, dressed in that fine leather attire.

Deliverance is a fucking amazing film.

I am ashamed to say I saw the original god father for the FIRST time start to finish last weekend. I am ashamed that it took me so long to see it properly. 10/10

  On 10/1/2009 at 9:50 AM, countchocula said:

I am ashamed to say I saw the original god father for the FIRST time start to finish last weekend. I am ashamed that it took me so long to see it properly. 10/10

Good man, now venture fourth and watch parts 2 and 3.

(I see what I did there).

crank 2 3/10

pretty poor. the ending was crap, the plot pointless. infact the whole movie was pointless. still had some humour but overall crap. shame because i loved the first film. 1 star added for eve

  On 10/1/2009 at 9:35 AM, goffer said:

Deliverance - re-watched this on blu-ray and it was like running my eyeballs against fine silk. This film never ceases to amaze and I cannot wait to soak my sheets in the many wet dreams I will have of Burt Reynolds tonight, dressed in that fine leather attire.

  On 10/1/2009 at 9:40 AM, abusivegeorge said:

Deliverance is a fucking amazing film.

lol, indeed. Everything that is apart from the day-for-night shooting, that always annoys me.

Book is great, too.

  On 10/1/2009 at 6:23 PM, lumpenprol said:

lol, indeed. Everything that is apart from the day-for-night shooting, that always annoys me.

Yeah, such a brilliant movie. I bought the Blu-ray (having not seen it in years) and was laughing when Voight spent the night on the rock. What could have been such a horrifying moment instead feels like something out of 60's Star Trek.

"Wow, it's so dark out that ummm the sun is shining."

My girlfriend asked if they were filming that scene during a solar eclipse.

  On 10/1/2009 at 9:51 AM, abusivegeorge said:

  On 10/1/2009 at 9:50 AM, countchocula said:

I am ashamed to say I saw the original god father for the FIRST time start to finish last weekend. I am ashamed that it took me so long to see it properly. 10/10

 

Good man, now venture fourth and watch parts 2 and 3.

 

(I see what I did there).

skip part 3. just my opinion. And I love the 1st 2 with a passion.

It must be the Italian mafia genre or something, but I just can't get along with "classics" like Godfather, Casino, Goodfellas etc. Half the time they just seem drawn out snoozefests.

That said, I did enjoy Godfather 2.

  On 10/1/2009 at 10:09 PM, Obel said:

It must be the Italian mafia genre or something, but I just can't get along with "classics" like Godfather, Casino, Goodfellas etc. Half the time they just seem drawn out snoozefests.

 

That said, I did enjoy Godfather 2.

Donnie Brasco?

Never saw it. Think my dad might have that, I'll have to borrow it if so. Take it that's a recommendation?

[quote name='lumpenprol' date='01 October 2009 - 12:23 PM' timestamp='1254414229'

  On 10/1/2009 at 9:40 AM, abusivegeorge said:

Deliverance is a fucking amazing film.

lol, indeed. Everything that is apart from the day-for-night shooting, that always annoys me.

You're dissing Vilmos Zsigmond. FFS, that's the best part of the film, it was created with that intention. The tension is a hundred times bigger with that.

  On 10/1/2009 at 11:51 PM, Philip Glass said:

  On 10/1/2009 at 6:23 PM, lumpenprol said:

lol, indeed. Everything that is apart from the day-for-night shooting, that always annoys me.

 

 

You're dissing Vilmos Zsigmond. FFS, that's the best part of the film, it was created with that intention. The tension is a hundred times bigger with that.

Are you joking? If by "created with that intention" you mean "they didn't have the means to shoot at night," then yes, yes indeed.

I Love You, Man. 7/10. Pretty good, Paul Rudd is an affable motherfucker. It was extremely similar to Forgetting Sarah Marshall (9/10) which I like. a lot more owing to Russell Brand and a Dracula musical involving puppets.

The Happening. I want to give it a 0/10 but damn if I wasn't laughing all the way through. Nobody fucks up a line delivery like Mark Wahlberg and from his opening moment he's in bottom form. This goes next to Showgirls on my list of films so bad I figure it must be on purpose.

In Bruges. Light, amusing, Colin Farrell worked really well. He was surprisingly believable in his midget infatuation. 7.5/10

Antichrist - wasn't as controversial as I thought it would be. Actually kind of beautiful in alot of scenes. Incredibly well shot. The ending was way more cathartic than I thought it would be.

Transformers: Revenge of the fallen - Forget the hollywood script, the cheesy talking robots that were made for da kids, forget Shia labeouf.

The CGI in the film. Man. And the sound design. Fucking hell, I got goosebumps just from listening to the sounds.

Capitalism: A Love Story

Moore was tactless like always, but he included some interesting things people should know about.

6.5/10

  On 10/1/2009 at 10:11 PM, sneaksta303 said:

  On 10/1/2009 at 10:09 PM, Obel said:

It must be the Italian mafia genre or something, but I just can't get along with "classics" like Godfather, Casino, Goodfellas etc. Half the time they just seem drawn out snoozefests.

 

That said, I did enjoy Godfather 2.

 

Donnie Brasco?

Carlito's way?

Solaris (Clooney version) - As a big fan of the original, I put off watching this for a long time, but I was always curious due to watmmers praising the Cliff Martinez soundtrack. Well the good news is what I could hear of the score during the movie sounded fantastic. Apart from that though, the film was basically the textbook definition of epic fail. The first 1/3 was ok and then it just went all pear shaped. The story is supposed to be about regret and desire, but Soderbergh failed to communicate that. Can I just say I hate Steve Soderbergh? How do you fuck up a movie that's already been made once? In the original film the Solaris Rhea can't leave his side, or she starts to flip out - as she's a facsimile created by the planet from his memories, this makes perfect sense. It also explains why they can't go back to earth. But in Soderbergh's version, they can't go back to earth for some vague, undefined reason - one crewmember fears Rheya will somehow infect or infiltrate normal humans. Soderbergh also throws in other weird "original" touches, like a seccurity team that mysteriously disappeared, and a subplot about the doctor being replaced by his dream-double. I guess he couldn't leave well enough alone. Clooney is at his best in this one, i think, and Jeremy Davies is good too, but it's all wasted. If anyone likes this version, please check out the original as it's far superior imo.

  On 10/2/2009 at 5:44 AM, lumpenprol said:

Solaris (Clooney version)

I kind of see this as the opposite of the original. This one is pretty great for the first third and then begins to suck a billion balls at once while I find a lot of the opening of the Tarkovsky version to be unbearable and the rest of it to be quite brilliant. Highway scene and opening image aside.

Side note - the transfer beep during the video conference in the original Solaris is, to my mind, the most unbearable sound ever created.

  On 10/2/2009 at 12:43 AM, Overand said:

I Love You, Man.

I love the way you mananged to sneak that in there unnoticed, watmm loves you too, man.

  On 10/2/2009 at 7:25 AM, abusivegeorge said:

  On 10/2/2009 at 12:43 AM, Overand said:

I Love You, Man.

 

I love the way you mananged to sneak that in there unnoticed, watmm loves you too, man.

Bro grabs?

YEA BRO

*Grabs overands balls and fondles gently*

  On 10/2/2009 at 12:29 AM, The Overlook said:

  On 10/1/2009 at 11:51 PM, Philip Glass said:

  On 10/1/2009 at 6:23 PM, lumpenprol said:

lol, indeed. Everything that is apart from the day-for-night shooting, that always annoys me.

 

 

You're dissing Vilmos Zsigmond. FFS, that's the best part of the film, it was created with that intention. The tension is a hundred times bigger with that.

Are you joking? If by "created with that intention" you mean "they didn't have the means to shoot at night," then yes, yes indeed.

No. While it was common practice to do so back then, heck Conrad Hall made a career out of that style too. For Deliverance they used a high light matte. DFN shoot is something beautiful, you got to accept the fact that the lenses weren't as fast back then. But it gives a lot of DoF. It's like grain. Or rear-projection car scenes. You gotta accept that it's just tools.

Check out Jonathon Livingstone Seagull, Black Robe, Wages of Fear or THe Mission for other nice Day-for-Night shoots. Heck even on modern film stocks they sometimes do it without digital enhancements (say Braveheart).

Yeah, I understand that (although, I appreciate the additional info and details), but I don't think it's true that Zsigmond would have opted to shoot DFN if high speed lenses and better film stocks were available. Do you have proof to the contrary? Like, did Zsigmond say, "We couldn't wait to shoot DFN!"

I agree that the additional DOF makes shooting DFN something fairly exceptional, even today. Regardless of the motivation behind the use of DFN for the Voight-on-mountain scene, it looked horrible.