Films Recently Watched

  On 8/16/2015 at 7:49 AM, cwmbrancity said:

 

  On 8/15/2015 at 6:46 PM, eugene said:

i read very little non-academic stuff, but when it comes to movies i prefer observational, experiential, personal and the absurd. i don't really like stuff like kubrick's 2001 and most of tarkovsky for example (with the exception of the mirror).

 

  Quote

 

Ingmar Bergman on Andrei Tarkovsky

My discovery of Tarkovsky's first film was like a miracle.

Suddenly, I found myself standing at the door of a room the keys of which had, until then, never been given to me. It was a room I had always wanted to enter and where he was moving freely and fully at ease.

I felt encouraged and stimulated: someone was expressing what I had always wanted to say without knowing how.

Tarkovsky is for me the greatest, the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream.

Ingmar Bergman solves a problem...

Suddenly I have the solution: a tracking shot. A tracking shot round the actors, past the extras, tracking. Tarkovsky is always tracking round in every scene, the camera flying in all directions. I actually think it an objectionable technique, but it solved my problem, time passes... (Laterna Magica, page 173)

Ingmar Bergman on cinema...

When film is not a document, it is dream. That is why Tarkovsky is the greatest of them all. He moves with such naturalness in the room of dreams. He doesn't explain. What should he explain anyhow? He is a spectator, capable of staging his visions in the most unwieldy but, in a way, the most willing of media. All my life I have hammered on the doors of the rooms in which he moves so naturally. Only a few times have I managed to creep inside. Most of my conscious efforts have ended in embarrassing failure - THE SERPENT'S EGG, THE TOUCH, FACE TO FACE and so on.

Fellini, Kurosawa and Bunuel move in the same fields as Tarkovsky. Antonioni was on his way, but expired, suffocated by his own tediousness. Melies was always there without having to think about it. He was a magician by profession.

Film as dream, film as music. (Laterna Magica, page 73)

 

i don't usually reply to users with such pathetic join date but that borgman guy you quote might be on to something about tarkovsky, googled this one: http://people.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/TheTopics/Symbols.html

i often thought i don't get his films because they are overloaded with symbolism (that part for example:

  On 8/16/2015 at 2:30 PM, eugene said:

i don't usually reply to users with such pathetic join date

  On 8/16/2015 at 2:05 PM, TRiP said:

Cube

 

Not sure why I put off watching this for so long, for some reason I thought it was really low-budget, but it's not - just a smaller budget put to good use! An entertaining and enthralling watch, nice bit'a sci-fi gore, cool concept, thumbs up all around.

 

button sucking/10

Yeah Cube is great, the sequel and prequel ain't half bad either.

Can't go wrong with a film called Cube 2: Hypercube!

Cube is great. never watched the sequels though.

lol

Tomboy - French film about a transgender 10yo girl-turned-boy. Really short (80min), very... european, I guess. Not much happens. It was entertaining, and it wasn't really heavy handed on gender roles or anything like that. good time waster

Cube is a classic. I would avoid all the sequels/prequels, though. In an attempt to fill in the backstory they totally kill the ominous mystery of the first film, which was better as an ambiguous, character based sci fi horror piece. Once the (not the original) writers start trying to explain things outside the cube it all falls apart.

Yeah the sequels weren't fantastic at explaining it but I enjoyed all the cube films, original and fun.

Yeah they're still neat gory sci fi horror films, I guess, but it's pretty obvious the creator of the first film had no intention of filling in a lot of the blanks that the sequels did.

Agreed, Cube is great.

The sequels are just fun if you like that kinda schlock

have you guys watched his other movie called Nothing? it's pretty great imo...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298482/

Playtime

Some great sequences / use of set design, but it sort of dragged on and was easy to tune out at times. But that almost seems the point of the film, being a reflection on the modern city. Mon Oncle was a more enjoyable film, anyhow

Seen all of Natali's work, apart from that Charlize Theron film with the alien pregnancy he manages to make science fiction interesting again as he is fairly original in his work. Also he always casts the actor David Hewlett who plays the sort of lonely odd bloke very well indeed. At the end of Cypher where he realises Jack Thursby is a rogue, it's bordering on theatre with his reaction. I hope he carries on making low budget films as there is an inverse relationship between money and imagination. Canada be giving us some good scifi bizness recently.

  On 8/16/2015 at 2:54 PM, triachus said:

 

  On 8/16/2015 at 2:30 PM, eugene said:

i don't usually reply to users with such pathetic join date

 

And me! It's like the director of the set just broke the illusion.

Yeah, Nothing is a very entertaining flick. Haven't seen Cypher or Splice but I intend to one of these days.

Not seen Nothing but Splice is fucking great yeah.

Ride Along - god awful, but it's getting a sequel??

Loved it. Real good. Understated, depressing, well acted, bittersweet, events unfold naturally 8.5/10

Cube was great, Splice was entertaining enough as well, I saw Cypher but can't really remember whether I liked it or not, I think I thought it was just ok. Will check out Nothing.

I wasn't keen on the end of Splice but I loved the practical effects, that monster thing was fucking creepy.

Mission Impossible 5

- Driving, shooting, yelling, why bother?

Just watched Escape from Alcatraz for the first time. Great film.

  On 8/17/2015 at 3:05 AM, doublename said:

Mission Impossible 5

- Driving, shooting, yelling, why bother?

you can do those things anytime, why would I sit through another Mission Impossible movie for it?

  On 8/16/2015 at 10:22 PM, Rubin Farr said:

Ride Along - god awful, but it's getting a sequel??

you can watch the sequel right now for free by watching the trailer

Tremors - Bacon/10 classic 90s. now my girl wants to watch em all

  On 8/16/2015 at 2:30 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 8/16/2015 at 7:49 AM, cwmbrancity said:

 

  On 8/15/2015 at 6:46 PM, eugene said:

i read very little non-academic stuff, but when it comes to movies i prefer observational, experiential, personal and the absurd. i don't really like stuff like kubrick's 2001 and most of tarkovsky for example (with the exception of the mirror).

 

  Quote

 

Ingmar Bergman on Andrei Tarkovsky

My discovery of Tarkovsky's first film was like a miracle.

Suddenly, I found myself standing at the door of a room the keys of which had, until then, never been given to me. It was a room I had always wanted to enter and where he was moving freely and fully at ease.

I felt encouraged and stimulated: someone was expressing what I had always wanted to say without knowing how.

Tarkovsky is for me the greatest, the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream.

Ingmar Bergman solves a problem...

Suddenly I have the solution: a tracking shot. A tracking shot round the actors, past the extras, tracking. Tarkovsky is always tracking round in every scene, the camera flying in all directions. I actually think it an objectionable technique, but it solved my problem, time passes... (Laterna Magica, page 173)

Ingmar Bergman on cinema...

When film is not a document, it is dream. That is why Tarkovsky is the greatest of them all. He moves with such naturalness in the room of dreams. He doesn't explain. What should he explain anyhow? He is a spectator, capable of staging his visions in the most unwieldy but, in a way, the most willing of media. All my life I have hammered on the doors of the rooms in which he moves so naturally. Only a few times have I managed to creep inside. Most of my conscious efforts have ended in embarrassing failure - THE SERPENT'S EGG, THE TOUCH, FACE TO FACE and so on.

Fellini, Kurosawa and Bunuel move in the same fields as Tarkovsky. Antonioni was on his way, but expired, suffocated by his own tediousness. Melies was always there without having to think about it. He was a magician by profession.

Film as dream, film as music. (Laterna Magica, page 73)

 

i don't usually reply to users with such pathetic join date but that borgman guy you quote might be on to something about tarkovsky, googled this one: http://people.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/TheTopics/Symbols.html

 

i often thought i don't get his films because they are overloaded with symbolism (that part for example:

) and such shit, but he pretty much contradicts that notion completely in those quotes.

 

hellooooo old timer, humour me a lil with this Trawkovsky bloke & the themes you linked,

i dunno what it is exactly, Stalker & Solyaris get at moods that arent encountered in film too often, they almost transcend symbolism, thats why they pack such a punch. Considering the domestic political climate of the era they were made in too, you cant help but wonder at the luck of it all.

similarly, have you seen any Sergei Parjanov filems? Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors & The Colour of Pomegranates are time well spent

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058642/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063555/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_7