Movie Recommendations
- Thread starter havoc
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
I thought Zizek was exaggerating when he said that every spielberg film is just the same paternal authority arc with a different skin each time. I just finished watching this mediocre animated film I remember seeing over 10 years ago called We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story. If you assume the T-Rex is a stand-in for an adoptive father then it becomes really transparent, almost to the detriment of the rest of the story. Thanks to Zizek I can barely even watch Spielberg films any more without seeing the forced father metaphors all over the place.
I remember it being way more disturbing than it actually is, and it would have been way better as a horror film on the same level as Coraline or something, because some of the stuff has stuck with me for the 10+ years since I last saw it, like the contract being signed with blood and the dinosaurs reverting back to their violent animalistic state. It's not even a very good film and even as a kid I remember it being a bit weird (every other scene with the 2 child protagonists tries to make them kiss each other, and some of the dialogue is bizzare), but some of that stuff subconsciously influences my writing to this day.
I remember it being way more disturbing than it actually is, and it would have been way better as a horror film on the same level as Coraline or something, because some of the stuff has stuck with me for the 10+ years since I last saw it, like the contract being signed with blood and the dinosaurs reverting back to their violent animalistic state. It's not even a very good film and even as a kid I remember it being a bit weird (every other scene with the 2 child protagonists tries to make them kiss each other, and some of the dialogue is bizzare), but some of that stuff subconsciously influences my writing to this day.
Turns out it is actually pretty good.jacobhinds said:Trainspotting is one of those "joke which can only be told once" films. The characters are funny but only in the context of the story. They have three options, and all of them are bad.
If they do the same thing again everything will have less impact and the film will suck.
If they ramp it up and make it more psychadelic than the original, it'll lose the grounding in reality and the crazy stuff will lise impact and it will suck.
If they tone it down and make it less about the drugs and more about fhe characters settling down or living less intense lives, it'll have none if the impact and will suck.
Unfortunately the trailer makes it look like they're going to do all three.
Ah, the AE Redux. Definitely a great version of Dune. The original has some beautiful imagery, it's a shame it got butchered by Universal Pictures.
IIRC there's some great documentary concerning the editing of Dune. I think it was edited by a single guy. I'll see if I can find the documentary.
EDIT. Remembered wrong, this is the documentary I was talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodorowsky's_Dune
And I thought Lawrence of Arabia was long.
EDIT. Remembered wrong, this is the documentary I was talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodorowsky's_Dune
And I thought Lawrence of Arabia was long.
Sounds pretty crazy. Like in the sense that someone is mentally unstable. 14 hour film doesn't make any practical sense.
And honestly, if it wasn't for that documentary, I'd probably never heard of Jodorowsky.
I've never reviewed any of his previous work, so I can't say how relevant of a person he is for his vision to be subjected to such scrutiny.
And honestly, if it wasn't for that documentary, I'd probably never heard of Jodorowsky.
I've never reviewed any of his previous work, so I can't say how relevant of a person he is for his vision to be subjected to such scrutiny.
Jodorowsky, creator of such films as El Topo and The Holy Mountain. Jodorowsky's Dune would have been the greatest film ever made.
I loved Nocturnal Animals, it's superbly acted and nice to look at.
This bit is pretty much the consensus about La La Land, and I don't understand when using an overused form in the simplest way counts as a cliche if it can also be a homage. Everything was just so predictable and I was just bored to death when watching it.Adorno said:
Swissky
Recently watched Tordenskjold & Kold. It's a story about a Norwegian man in service of the Danish navy that wins a decisive victory over the Swedes in the final months of the Great Northern War at Dynekilen, and how he will never reach a higher point in his life so he goes around on tour, telling tall tales about the battle. He also likes having sex with anything that moves. It also features the story of his death.
The movie does however remind me of Marie Antoinette from 2006, there's a lot of modern words put to use aswell as the comic relief.
Also features a man in drag being raped by a different man who wants vengeance due to a missing body part of his.
The movie does however remind me of Marie Antoinette from 2006, there's a lot of modern words put to use aswell as the comic relief.
The Salesman is perfect, I love how farhadi manages to create something deep and marvellous out of nothing. Nothing is violent, everything is normal but the story is just so compelling and captivating with all its grey areas. Compare it with Prisoners, how much violent and unusual stuff villeneuve has to show to present a moral dilemma.
Peeping Tom (1960) "A frank exploration of voyeurism and violence, Michael Powell’s extraordinary film is the story of a psychopathic cameraman—his childhood traumas, sexual crises, and murderous revenge as an adult."
Groundbreaking and controversial film that ruined the great career of Michael Powell. Critics couldn't deal with the complex psychological topics and graphic imagery and just saw it for a travesty, reminiscent of critical reception to Psycho in that same year. It slowly grew to be appreciated. One of Scorsese's favourite films, he managed to get it recirculated in 1979 to much praise.
Groundbreaking and controversial film that ruined the great career of Michael Powell. Critics couldn't deal with the complex psychological topics and graphic imagery and just saw it for a travesty, reminiscent of critical reception to Psycho in that same year. It slowly grew to be appreciated. One of Scorsese's favourite films, he managed to get it recirculated in 1979 to much praise.
I vaguely remember watching some long indepth documentary on that film when I was 12 or something. Remind me to watch this.
Yeah, don't judge it by the trailer. The movie is more awful in a million ways.
'Hey, let's cram a bunch of decent-to-good actors in a boring film, where there is no action(I don't mean butt-kicking action, just regular flow, movement), the dialogues are forced, wooden and out of place and the virtually non-existent plot doesn't want to move further. Throw in almost no outdoor scenes, empty, vaguely office-like spaces, because we are a multi-super-billion company that faces ruin! Oh, and love, do you know what would be great? It would be great, amazefantastawesome really, if we had those actors repeat constantly the phrase "You know what that means" in all possible combinations and forms. And proceed by NOT explaining what that means. Lovely, lovely!"
'Hey, let's cram a bunch of decent-to-good actors in a boring film, where there is no action(I don't mean butt-kicking action, just regular flow, movement), the dialogues are forced, wooden and out of place and the virtually non-existent plot doesn't want to move further. Throw in almost no outdoor scenes, empty, vaguely office-like spaces, because we are a multi-super-billion company that faces ruin! Oh, and love, do you know what would be great? It would be great, amazefantastawesome really, if we had those actors repeat constantly the phrase "You know what that means" in all possible combinations and forms. And proceed by NOT explaining what that means. Lovely, lovely!"
Similar threads
