Films Recently Watched

  On 2/7/2013 at 4:31 AM, zaphod said:

indie game - the movie

you probably won't get paid

 

the guys got phat paid!

  On 2/7/2013 at 6:45 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

 

• the master - some of the cinematography here is pretty weird, a bit flashy/stylish a bit like iPhone, i don't like it that much, action extremely focused while background completely out of focus, as i stated before, i don't like this, i like to be able to place myself on the scene and look around, this new technique is disabling my enjoyment of the scenario... fuck that... i don't need the camera to be my eyes, that's just a stupid idea like recording music with microphones placed where you'd going to listen to it... NO! you record, the best you can, and whoever enjoys it has the pleasure to look/ear around instead of being told what/where to ear/look..

just watched it again, and yes, this camera works like an eye instead of a window, don't like!

sounds like youd be better off going to the theatre to be honest , then you can look at whatever you want . also that movie is more of a character study its not just some dumb style over substance visual extravaganza . and the microphone analogy is so wacked out im gonna assume its trolling and move on . 3/10

  On 2/8/2013 at 6:20 PM, Shit Attack said:

sounds like youd be better off going to the theatre to be honest , then you can look at whatever you want . also that movie is more of a character study its not just some dumb style over substance visual extravaganza . and the microphone analogy is so wacked out im gonna assume its trolling and move on . 3/10

hey it's just my opinion, YOU PIG FUCK!!!

 

 

 

and maybe the analogy doesn't make sense in your head cause you're just as dumb as those style over substance movies you sure can't appreciate because there's not a superhero involved... or a social drama, or a cop, and guns, and yeah, racism...

Edited February 8, 2013 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON

  On 2/8/2013 at 6:20 PM, Shit Attack said:

sounds like youd be better off going to the theatre to be honest , then you can look at whatever you want . also that movie is more of a character study its not just some dumb style over substance visual extravaganza . and the microphone analogy is so wacked out im gonna assume its trolling and move on . 3/10

the curtains? insane contradiction.. you're basically saying that this film is like theatre, about character/actor performance rather than cinematography. he wouldnt be better of going to the theatre because there would be a similar lack of cinematography, which is a fair enough thing to have a preference for in films.

 

edit: that doesnt make 100% sense because i thought it was about another film, but whatev

Edited February 8, 2013 by tauboo

yes this is the kind of script that anyone could watch in a theater, i believe it would work better as a musical...

moving pictures

 

 

vs

 

 

let's use a camera to tell the history of this book

a musical seems like an even worse way to remove us from the window view of reality though, does it not?

  On 2/8/2013 at 7:19 PM, compson said:

a musical seems like an even worse way to remove us from the window view of reality though, does it not?

fuck window view of reality, this is film, not a tv reality show...

 

 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2013 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON

Your half-assed ADD opinions on film are annoying, and disrupting to any flow of conversation we try to have within this thread.

 

Get a youtube channel and go to town on that shit...

 

You could look at yourself talking about how much you hate The Master's cinematography.

 

Imagine it man, you could look at yourself talking!!!!

we???

i disrupt??? what you and everyone, we??? except me???

 

 

lol dude, are you sure that the planet earth really revolves around the sun??? or is it around your ass???

 

 

you fucking condescending twat!!!

Edited February 8, 2013 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON

WATMM

  On 11/5/2012 at 6:23 AM, Atop said:

the film attendees look dazed and introspective when they come out of the theater.

 

Perhaps because they didn't get what they just saw, like after watching Holy Mountain for the first time.

 

 

The Korean future storyline makes the whole film experience worth going through til the end.

 

does it??? i mean, even with the most awful cgi in the history of film making??? even if the supposedly WAR is placed in a kind of theater with the worst lightning ever seen in the history of film making???

 

 

you're just making things up...

 

 

  On 1/6/2013 at 6:01 AM, Atop said:

The make up in Cloud Atlas is not the most interesting part of the film, or the biggest flaw. I enjoyed it a lot. This film is not for those whom have no patience and/or depth.

i rest my case...

Edited February 8, 2013 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON

we are all just making things up and my case is strengthened by your thinking that your opinions are fact.

 

Worst cgi ever? hehehe you are one crazy fool.

 

I guess I am coming from a place that just doesn't mix at all with the way you see reality. This happens. We all can't agree.

here is some of the worst cgi ever

  On 2/8/2013 at 9:16 PM, Atop said:

we are all just making things up and my case is strengthened by your thinking that your opinions are fact.

yes there is something wrong with your perception of reality if you think that i think that my opinions are facts...

 

when i say that things are unfocused or blured it is a FACT, when i say i don't like, it is an OPINION, need a drawing???

I need you to quit proving me right.

 

Your OPINION on P T Anderson's use of focus has nothing to do with the acting, writing, or the entirety of the film.

 

I was kidding a while back when I complained about the way Malick shot the sun in The Tree of Life, while it bugged me, it was not the main reason I did not love the film. I believe I went into more detail than just one aspect of this film.

  On 2/8/2013 at 9:34 PM, Atop said:

I need you to quit proving me right.

 

Your OPINION on P T Anderson's use of focus has nothing to do with the acting, writing, or the entirety of the film.

where did i prove you right ???? you sure know how to mangle around things and distort them, thumbs up for you you interwebz warrior, or maybe you also suffer from ADD, interpreting things in a totally different way from their meanings....

 

 

Your OPINION on P T Anderson's use of focus has nothing to do with the acting, writing, or the entirety of the film.

Your OPINION on P T Anderson's use of focus has nothing to do with the acting, writing, or the entirety of the film.

Your OPINION on P T Anderson's use of focus has nothing to do with the acting, writing, or the entirety of the film.

Your OPINION on P T Anderson's use of focus has nothing to do with the acting, writing, or the entirety of the film.

Your OPINION on P T Anderson's use of focus has nothing to do with the acting, writing, or the entirety of the film.

 

SO WHAT??? DID I SAY ANYTHING IN CONTRARY????

 

 

ffs looks like i'm talking to that guy from my class..... deer lord...

 

 

this all stupid thing started because you came accusing me of being annoying with my constant opinion on things, i wonder if you ever read your own stuff, cause you know, i also find your constant love for everything annoying, and i don't go around spitting it in front of you...

Edited February 8, 2013 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON

you two should go on a zip-line tour, have an adventure together

somebody here needs his daily propofol injection

  On 2/8/2013 at 6:52 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

 

  On 2/8/2013 at 6:20 PM, Shit Attack said:

sounds

like youd be better off going to the theatre to be honest , then you

can look at whatever you want . also that movie is more of a character

study its not just some dumb style over substance visual extravaganza .

and the microphone analogy is so wacked out im gonna assume its trolling

and move on . 3/10

hey it's just my opinion, YOU PIG FUCK!!!

 

 

 

and

maybe the analogy doesn't make sense in your head cause you're just as

dumb as those style over substance movies you sure can't appreciate

because there's not a superhero involved... or a social drama, or a cop,

and guns, and yeah, racism...

 

8/10 for the pig fuck reference + not saying your opinion isnt valid or wrong it just struck me as a weird criticism . the rest of it went over my head a bit . i like a lot of style over substance type movies but this wasnt one of em. gonna have to give it 5/10

 

  On 2/8/2013 at 6:57 PM, tauboo said:

 

  On 2/8/2013 at 6:20 PM, Shit Attack said:

sounds

like youd be better off going to the theatre to be honest , then you

can look at whatever you want . also that movie is more of a character

study its not just some dumb style over substance visual extravaganza .

and the microphone analogy is so wacked out im gonna assume its trolling

and move on . 3/10

the curtains? insane contradiction..

you're basically saying that this film is like theatre, about

character/actor performance rather than cinematography. he wouldnt be

better of going to the theatre because there would be a similar lack of

cinematography, which is a fair enough thing to have a preference for in

films.

 

edit: that doesnt make 100% sense because i thought it was about another film, but whatev

 

not

really understanding this what i meant was michael jackson is

complaining that he cant look at whatever he wants when watching a film

so he might enjoy theatre more because as i understand it (having only

previously been to pantomimes as a kid) you can look at whatever you

want whenever you feel like it without like being forced into it by

whatever the camera is focusing on and stuff like you know dude ?

it wasnt meant to be all that serious

 

^dunno why that text came out like that

Holy shit, is everyone's vagina overly sensitive due to the new Autechre release?

What the fuck is going on here?

 

The Master - Crazy and god damn brilliant film. I've long waited to see Philip S Hoffman in a role he deserves.

"entrance" 2012...sigh....

 

SPOILERS ahead:

 

i've seen a lot of these types of horror movies over the years. you know, it's either like "found" footage or otherwise looks like it was filmed in a more candid, more "real" manner. and as is the case with nearly every one of these i've seen this film was just style over substance. the first hour of the film could've been decent-ish, it had a steady slow build that set the stage for numerous potential crepinesses to arise. but alas, after this all you get in the end is 15 minutes of a compressed slasher flick with a ridiculous non-ending where some guy just shows up at a dinner party and kills everybody. i feel like films like this probably just suffer from being too easy to make. one doesn't really need to write a decent flick when you can just film your friends sitting around in their apartment for an hour and then some stranger comes in and kills everyone the end. wtf? i mean, was there a script? was it one page?

 

3/10

Edited February 9, 2013 by Alcofribas

end of watch - we're shooting our way out of here, bro. you with me dude? fist bump. how's my chest hair look? this is what it's all about! yeah, dude. los angeles PD! lemme tell you about latin girls, bro. this shit's like a videogame man. shit is about to go off! oh shit, you hurt bro? is it bad? let me see. take off your pants bro. i know you weren't hit in the dick, but i need to see your dick dude. let me see your junk, i need to make sure it's ok. breh. brah. bro. blech

fuck i gotta see that