More or less explains where Andy's Dad is.The Boy also explains Toy Story perfectly, which is cool
hey, just dropping by to tell you once you have familiarized yourself a bit with Kurosawa's movies, you should check out Harakiri, directed by Kobayashi. It's my favourite samurai movie and has received major acclaim in general. It offers a very interesting take on samurai culture (and perhaps even modern japanese culture) and is, above all, intensely suspenseful and a fantastic watch. You don't wanna miss out on it, believe me.does anyone know some good samurai movies I could watch :o
Oh, this fucking argument. God forbid that a movie's score carries its own weight, we need scores that we never notice until we buy them to brag about what connoisseurs we are. When someone tells me that a scene where a dog dies "wasn't sincerely sad" because the music also swelled they just look like a fucking idiot... of course it's sad, the dog just died. The music is just making it better. One would think that someone who'd nominated Inside Out (rightly so) would get that.7. Room - ★★★
Room really frustrated me. It was incredibly emotional, and very well-acted, but I feel like that none of that emotion was earned. The film is inherently depressing due to the subject matter, but the actual way it conveyed the emotion was awfully insincere - a schlocky, over-sentimental score playing over each emotional beat took me out of the movie. The movie can only evoke genuine sadness during understated moments - 'I love you, Grandma' - but aside from that the film revels in bluntness. The direction is also often very lacking, and can come across as distracting to the story. Tremblay is great, but my God the narration is sickly-sweet. The film also loses a lot of focus in the second and third acts, and I'm not sure I agree with the way the characters react after certain situations occur. Also wasn't as explorative during the second third acts (as in, Tremblay's arc wasn't as developed as I would have liked it to have been.)
I thought this was one of the most horribly strung out movies I have ever seen. Yes, it was beautiful and incredibly well shot. But my god, there was no tension because we had to wait for 130 million years between each bit of action. I was on the verge of falling asleep because the middle 45 minutes were almost dead weight. Make a 2h30 film but fill it with content like Interstellar. There were several segments that left me entirely confused. What happened with the girl he rescued from the french? Why did they all go after Leo's character and none of them seemed to care about the girl who had just chopped their commanding officers dick off?4. The Revenant - ★★★★
The Revenant is one of the most beautiful-looking films I've seen in cinema, but it conveys tension and thrill at the expense of diminishing any other emotion. There's a distinct lack of engrossment with the story, and so despite DiCaprio's sufferings, we don't care for him as a character. Hardy is great, Poulter is even better, DiCaprio is good but not worthy of his imminent Oscar, and Gleeson remains one of the most overrated young actors we have today. But when the film excites, it really excites - the river scene is incredible, the fight between Hardy and DiCaprio tense, and the opening few 20 minutes are marvellous. And despite the film's runtime, it goes by so quickly. If this won Best Picture, I honestly wouldn't be too disappointed - it's a daring epic that needs to be seen in cinema.
Why?i saw Hail, Caeser today. absolutely fucking hated it.
Gotta disagree w/ you - the film was tremendously tense, the river scene and end fight exemplifying that. A few parts of the film could have been cut out, sure - I didn't care for the dream sequences - but the film is all about the journey and so the 'dead weight' is needed to convey the relentless suffering and torment that DiCaprio's character goes through. I thought it was made clear that the girl he rescued from the French was picked up by the natives, leading to them not killing DiCaprio at the end as a way of thanking him. Second part is a really small nitpick - I could be making cases like that for every film. True, it's disappointing that Leo has his Best Actor win all but locked down, but the competition this year is really weak - every nominated male performance has been quite average (though I haven't seen Trumbo or The Danish Girl). Perhaps Fassbender is more deserving, but even then...I thought this was one of the most horribly strung out movies I have ever seen. Yes, it was beautiful and incredibly well shot. But my god, there was no tension because we had to wait for 130 million years between each bit of action. I was on the verge of falling asleep because the middle 45 minutes were almost dead weight. Make a 2h30 film but fill it with content like Interstellar. There were several segments that left me entirely confused. What happened with the girl he rescued from the french? Why did they all go after Leo's character and none of them seemed to care about the girl who had just chopped their commanding officers dick off?
I will agree however that Poulter stood out immensely for me. Played it perfectly. But it's a shame that the lull in the middle of the film never really crescendo'd to anything. I'd probably only give it a 5 or 6 to be honest... Looks great, but it lacks in a lot of places. I'll be sad if Leo got an Oscar for that performance, when he has had other, better roles.
I didn't say that the score made the film insincere, just that it's a contributing factor in the overall fakeness of the film's emotional core. But I hate pandering to audiences via treating them like children - the overuse of a generically sad theme blatantly tells the audience how they should feel, rather than letting them work it out for themselves. Good films are able to create sadness not due to their score, but alongside their score. That's what Room fails to do - the concept is inherently upsetting but isn't really capitalised on by its director (Buttered Toast explains this in a more eloquent way than I could write) - something that Inside Out achieves. Of course, a score isn't even needed to convey sadness - Patricia Arquette's monologue in Boyhood was the most heartbreaking scene of 2014 imo.Oh, this fucking argument. God forbid that a movie's score carries its own weight, we need scores that we never notice until we buy them to brag about what connoisseurs we are. When someone tells me that a scene where a dog dies "wasn't sincerely sad" because the music also swelled they just look like a fucking idiot... of course it's sad, the dog just died. The music is just making it better. One would think that someone who'd nominated Inside Out (rightly so) would get that.
You know those ads or radio ads where an adult puts on a kids voice and pretends to be one, or a kid reads from a script written by an adult? That's what the narration felt like - that's what I mean by insincere. Read Buttered Toast's post which explains how underdeveloped Tremblay's 'arc' is also.The narration is sickly-sweet? Cause the narrator is a fucking 5 year old! The actor himself literally wasn't told about the darker shit in the film. There's a layer of whimsy over the whole film. Of course it seems insincere, it's genuinely naive. In an interview with the cast, someone was talking about the scene where he's jumping off of chairs with more room, "you see that all the time with children and think nothing of it, but he goes from this cramped space to being able to do this, and you think, that's childhood". I don't know what you could have wanted from his arc that we didn't get. It just seems to have flown right over your head while you were pre-preparing the new york times review column that you aren't actually responsible for.
Dude, I thought there were a bunch of tense films in 2015 - Sicario, The Revenant, Hateful Eight, Beasts of No Nation, Whiplash, Crimson Peak, Lost River, Foxcatcher, Chappie, The Lobster, Partisan, Wild Tales, etc - just because it doesn't line up with what you view as tense doesn't mean that I'm a cold person.Your talk of inability to create tension in other gripping movies makes you seem like a rather cold person too. And you never did rebut me over Interstellar vs. The Martian. The Martian, as far as being likeliness goes, is my Oscar pick so far. Interstellar was shit. Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.
And I can see why you wouldn't understand this, but those quips? Real people do that. I'm doing it right now. But not only is it not "unrealistic" but the reason this new trend in movies is so popular is actually because tiny bits of levity are like micro-injections of breathing room that help movies, silly action films and smart oscar movies alike, conform to Ray Bradbury's 1st rule of art (which they desperately need to).
But I'll give you that Matt Damon's character doesn't feel like a person. He feels like more than a man. He feels like what humans want to be. He goes beyond the limits of humanity using determination, levity, and most importantly, SCIENCE. The character in Interstellar does so with a magic hole in space that actual scientists previously thought was a space god for no reason. Fucking stupid shit ass stupid fucking movie. I miss Nolan as a good director so much.
In red is what you said. In blue is the same thing, but said in a pretentious way. The paragraph you quoted was all about how fucking stupid this whole paragraph as an argument is, and since you are essentially repeating yourself, there is nothing more to say. The melodrama argument is a shite argument by people who don't know shit about music parroting what other shite critics have said. I disagree fundamentally, and never want my movies to be like the ones you want to watch.I didn't say that the score made the film insincere, just that it's a contributing factor in the overall fakeness of the film's emotional core. But I hate pandering to audiences via treating them like children - the overuse of a generically sad theme blatantly tells the audience how they should feel, rather than letting them work it out for themselves. Good films are able to create sadness not due to their score, but alongside their score.
I'm going to call you on your general reading comprehension here. Because BT's entire argument was that the movie was too upsetting because it didn't follow the book enough, and because apparently you hate movies that follow books so I don't know how that wasn't a red flag. Which leads me toThat's what Room fails to do - the concept is inherently upsetting but isn't really capitalised on by its director (Buttered Toast explains this in a more eloquent way than I could write)
I disagree so much that, like many others, I'd have given Tremblay the main actor oscar if possible. As is he's probably getting the secondary anyway.You know those ads or radio ads where an adult puts on a kids voice and pretends to be one, or a kid reads from a script written by an adult? That's what the narration felt like - that's what I mean by insincere.
That was a more general observation than something limited to one movie. But hey, Chappie is exactly the kind of wonderful movie I'd expect you to hate, so that's something.Dude, I thought there were a bunch of tense films in 2015 - Sicario, The Revenant, Hateful Eight, Beasts of No Nation, Whiplash, Crimson Peak, Lost River, Foxcatcher, Chappie, The Lobster, Partisan, Wild Tales, etc - just because it doesn't line up with what you view as tense doesn't mean that I'm a cold person.
Stop repeating yourself. We've argued about these two movies three times now and you don't address what I say at all, so why put anything in the form of a question? Why did you even bother to reply?And why do you hate Interstellar so much?? It has one thing that The Martian sorely lacks - ambition. While The Martian is intent on keeping safe and by the books in order to appeal to the masses, and, in turn, rack up the Oscar nominations (Damon for Best Actor? Ridiculous), Interstellar is a brave and unique exploration into space and wild concepts of planets and fourth dimensions. Was there any scene in The Martian that overwhelmed you as much as the warphole scene? Gripped you as much as the 'Mountains' scene? Impacted you as much as the intensely emotional video scene? Interstellar is a flawed masterpiece, but hey, at least it tries to do something different. The Martian is entertaining, but wholly by the books, and heck, I enjoyed Exodus more.
jesus christ im glad im not the only one. Interstellar had literally the worst soundtrack I've ever heard on a movie and it completely fucking ruined many parts of it for me (not that the movie would have been fantastic otherwise, but it would have been all right). Some parts of the soundtrack seriously just sounded like Hans Zimmer scraping various bits of scrap metal against each other and calling it "dissonance building tension" as opposed to actual, you know, music.The mountains scene? Was that the WHOM WHOM WHOM WHOM I'm Hans Zimmer and people pay me to bang a hammer against a wall and call it music scene?
Do you remember when that one track was comprised mostly of a ticking clock? Because time was of the essence? FUCKING GENIUS /sarcasmjesus christ im glad im not the only one. Interstellar had literally the worst soundtrack I've ever heard on a movie and it completely fucking ruined many parts of it for me (not that the movie would have been fantastic otherwise, but it would have been all right). Some parts of the soundtrack seriously just sounded like Hans Zimmer scraping various bits of scrap metal against each other and calling it "dissonance building tension" as opposed to actual, you know, music.
Yeah, this argument isn't going to go anywhere. We clearly disagree on the matter, it's all subjective, let's move on.In red is what you said. In blue is the same thing, but said in a pretentious way. The paragraph you quoted was all about how fucking stupid this whole paragraph as an argument is, and since you are essentially repeating yourself, there is nothing more to say. The melodrama argument is a shite argument by people who don't know shit about music parroting what other shite critics have said. I disagree fundamentally, and never want my movies to be like the ones you want to watch.
Also gonna call you out on your general reading comprehension. I don't think that BT calling the film 'ungenuine' and that 'a lot of this movie didn't click to me' results in a film that's too upsetting. It may contain upsetting themes/themes that are more upsetting than what the book conveys, but that's not what I'm arguing. The themes themselves are inherently upsetting, not the way the film portrays them. Also, don't generalise. I don't automatically hate a movie that follows the book, but I hate the stigma against movies diverting from the book.I'm going to call you on your general reading comprehension here. Because BT's entire argument was that the movie was too upsetting because it didn't follow the book enough, and because apparently you hate movies that follow books so I don't know how that wasn't a red flag.
Again, subjectivity, so not gonna argue. Tremblay's performance was hella good sans narration (which is more a fault of the writer's), but if we're talking about actors who deserve to win Best Actor then I'd go for Abraham Attah in Beasts of No Nation or Antoine Pilon in Mommy (Though I don't know if he's eligible). Also, Tremblay can't get Supporting Actor, he's not nominated - would've liked him ahead of Rylance tho.I disagree so much that, like many others, I'd have given Tremblay the main actor oscar if possible. As is he's probably getting the secondary anyway.
I don't mind if a film follows the book closely, but by doing that it automatically limits itself in what the film can accomplish. I'm sure the book is great, but as a film it's formulaic and standard - a perfectly acceptable, enjoyable film (I gave it 3 stars) but not a film that excels in any department. Why are you praising The Martian for instilling 'a confidence in space exploration, science, and the power of man in general' while simultaneously bashing Interstellar? It achieves the same effects - heck, the reason as to why they all survive is revealed as being mankind. If that doesn't instill a confidence in the power of man in general, then I don't know what does. Sure, The Martian achieves all that, but I'd argue against (this is subjective, of course) The Martian being heralded as ambitious as a result of that. When I talk of ambition, I talk of scope, of grand themes (In Interstellar's case, love, time, mankind), and The Martian's grand themes (mankind, hope) aren't fully realised due to a lethargic way of telling the story. Also, you argue that there's no fear-mongering occuring in the film, but the fact that Damon finds himself in the position he does is a huge example of the trepidations of space exploration - not that the film is hindered by it, just that your point is a little wonky. And in terms of the most important movie message of the year, it's ridiculous that you think The Martian's is one of them. Look towards Inside Out its message that to overcome depression you need sadness, you need to accept your current state. Look towards Tomorrowland (yes I am aware that this film is almost universally loathed) and its message to break away from constant pessimism and create a world worth living for. The Martian's message of looking toward space exploration is not nearly as powerful or important, and its message of man being able to survive in the face of adversity is hardly new for movies this year (The Revenant) or space movies in general (Gravity).The Martian was safe because it followed a book closely? Should it not have? It was a major motion picture, how many people do you think saw it who read the book? I hadn't. I don't give a shit about the book. So that argument's fucked. The Martian is one of the first space movies that instills a confidence in space exploration, science, and the power of man in general, as opposed to the general fear-mongering we usually see. That would easily make its message the most ambitious and important of the year, had The Big Short not come out (and The Martian is the better movie overall).
Ok so I read your post that hates on Interstellar's 'voodoo nonsense' andInterstellar wanted to be about the power of man... but it's filled with voodoo nonsense (I won't repeat myself, read the post you quoted) because Nolan has steadily gone from being a very smart above-your-head director into one that dumb things down for the lowest common-denominator. Nolan prints money. He's not brave, he doesn't have to be. I don't pull the fanboy card often, but I don't know how else someone could fail to see something so obvious AND highly rate his two recent shitfests.
The scene as soon as McConaughey and Hathaway arrive on ship after the water planet, and sit down to view video messages from their children (or in Hathaway's case, father). The shock of the reveal that they've been on the planet for years, and watching McConaughey's son slowly begin to resent him message after message was intensely heartbreaking.Which video scene? I don't even remember this powerful amazing scene. I have a vague guess, but maybe you should remind me?
Sick banter m8And I'm glad you liked Exodus, cause you're gonna love Gods of Egypt.
Are we seriously bashing Interstellar's Oscar-nominated, Golden Globes-nominated, BAFTA-nominated score here? Interstellar's score was fuckin terrific - orchestral, somehow denoting the same elements of grandeur and epicosity as the film, and incredibly unique. The score is instantly recognisable and iconic in that regard - I know that there's a lot of hate against Zimmer now because seemingly it's now 'cool' to hate him due to his popularity, but he's a master at creating iconic scores. Just look at Pirates of the Caribbean, Sherlock Holmes, Inception, Dark Knight. They're beloved, and for good reason - without them, the films wouldn't have the same atmosphere/tone, and would be directly hindered. I'd rather have Interstellar's score than generic Marvel score #472 or The Martian's score - did it have a score? I can't remember. It's really forgettable.Stratos said:jesus christ im glad im not the only one. Interstellar had literally the worst soundtrack I've ever heard on a movie and it completely fucking ruined many parts of it for me (not that the movie would have been fantastic otherwise, but it would have been all right). Some parts of the soundtrack seriously just sounded like Hans Zimmer scraping various bits of scrap metal against each other and calling it "dissonance building tension" as opposed to actual, you know, music.
Because it's bad at it.Why are you praising The Martian for instilling 'a confidence in space exploration, science, and the power of man in general' while simultaneously bashing Interstellar?
For no reason. Why does a wormhole require a creator? Isn't that the exact same argument that us religious folk make about everything else? They don't understand it, so they think it's created. Which would be FINE, if it weren't a movie about humanism. It's a humanistic movie utterly failing to live up to the core beliefs of the concept.Ok so I read your post that hates on Interstellar's 'voodoo nonsense' and
'The character in Interstellar does so with a magic hole in space that actual scientists previously thought was a space god for no reason.'
it's kinda hilarious how unjustified your response is. Scientists didn't think it was a space god, but rather a separate entity or life form evolved way beyond humans - which is reasonable as there could be very little else to create this wormhole.
YES. I want my movie about how awesome science is to SHOW how awesome SCIENCE is. Not make shit up wholesale. Interstellar is a fantasy movie masquerading as a logical movie. It's stupid drivel. The Prestige and Inception were fantasy movies too, but they grounded in lies and bullshit, so it was great when they were a bunch of bullshit. That's the kind of movie Nolan always excelled at, and he's biting off way more than he can chew by making a movie like Interstellar WHILE ALSO dumbing down his films in order to make the maximum amount of money. When he goes back to making movies like Memento, and alienates a portion of his audience, well, then we can maybe put bravery on the table, but I'd still argue someone as powerful and with (clearly) as dogmatic fans as he has that it wouldn't require bravery to do so.What would you have rather happened? Because it sounds to me like you'd rather have a more by-the-books, film limited by strict laws (rather than using the idea that not all of science is known, and so giving license to the wild ingenuities of Interstellar). Which is exactly what you got in The Martian, so hey, you got what you wanted.
Is it popular? Is it really? Thank fucking god. Best news I've heard all day.Are we seriously bashing Interstellar's Oscar-nominated, Golden Globes-nominated, BAFTA-nominated score here? Interstellar's score was fuckin terrific - orchestral, somehow denoting the same elements of grandeur and epicosity as the film, and incredibly unique. The score is instantly recognisable and iconic in that regard - I know that there's a lot of hate against Zimmer now because seemingly it's now 'cool' to hate him due to his popularity,
Which is surprising, given that it was done by Hans Zimmer's award winning student Harry Gregson-Williams. And also somewhat better and more accomplished, though hardly perfect. At least The Martian had this retro adventure 4X game soundtrack, which might not be exactly appropriate but it was still really cool. But I'm guessing non-diagetic music isn't something you're exactly passionate about, given that all you can do is name the most well known composers, dryly list their awards, and describe music only in ludicrously vague terms like "epicosity", seriously, what the fuck kind of word is that?The Martian's score - did it have a score? I can't remember. It's really forgettable.