|
Post by Anasazie on Jan 5, 2010 12:51:13 GMT
Lists of adjectives are my favourite thing. It's getting boring matey.
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Jan 5, 2010 13:05:30 GMT
Tetro 5/10Francis Ford Coppola 2009 | USA/Italy/Spain/Argentina ; Plane Can you share your thoughts on this film? I don't really have too much to say about it to be honest. Was pretty tired watching it in the middle of a 24 hour flight. It's definitely worth seeing and is obviously a deliberate attempt to return to the small, personal film-making Coppola was chucking out in the early-mid 80s. The performances were ok, but i wasn't keen on the photography as it was shot in B&W on HD and shows, even on a tiny screen. I'm not sure why Coppola can't afford to short on film, but i just find it hard to forgive the lack of detail in the new formats unless using them fits stylistically or their used because of obvious budgetry restraints. I'm not really sure of the relevance of the story, I'd say Coppola could be venting some of his own personal demons with family and art. It wasn't exactly a complex or deep film from what i could see (but then i was half asleep so may've missed something). Just a simple story about a poet/writer living in exile, his fraught relationship with his artistically successful and overbearing father and his attempt to move out of his shadow, his writing block that stems from this and his relationship with his younger brother who follows him to Buenos Aries years later and attempts to inspire him artistically. It was quite moving in the end, but quite slow and far from anything special on every level. Some heavy handed inclusions of colourful dance scenes to express emotion in a different way didn't sit well with me either. The whole thing was a little self conscious.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 5, 2010 14:33:27 GMT
Forgot to add:
Paranormal Activity (Peli) *** Back to the Future (Zemeckis) **** The Lion King (Allers, Minkoff) ****
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Jan 5, 2010 16:32:07 GMT
Thanks Anasazie. In an interview he mentioned that he chose high contrast B&W after he and his DP looked at several older films and kind of liked the contrast used by Antonioni. Plus I saw a very wide angle shot in the trailer, which raised my curiosity even more. Disappointed to know that HDV is of poor quality even for a plane screen - but I also suspect at the same time that the plane screens are really crappy anyway.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jan 5, 2010 16:51:42 GMT
Over Christmas break, I watched Oliver Stone's Revisted Cut of Alexander, and I thought it was historically solid, even with the small inaccuracies. I enjoyed it very much.
Also, I watched Fiddler on the Roof. That's definitely one of my top ten favorites. It nails late imperial Russian village life.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 5, 2010 17:36:41 GMT
Lists of adjectives are my favourite thing. It's getting boring matey. What, pointing out that the asinine is asinine? Not for me, it's my second favourite thing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 5, 2010 17:59:02 GMT
Lists of adjectives are my favourite thing. Are you talking about my GF III post?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 5, 2010 18:15:46 GMT
Yes, it was very Anasazie-esque.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 6, 2010 1:08:00 GMT
Those are all adjectives meaning different things that accurately reflect my thoughts on the film.
Don't know what else I could have posted.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 6, 2010 1:15:30 GMT
I doubt this is true.
And I'd do the courtesy of assuming that your thoughts on the film were more substantive than a list of vague adjectives. To say that they 'accurately' reflect your thoughts on the film, or Coppola's ideas more specifically, is to say that you couldn't elaborate on why they are "shallow", "transparent" "contrived" and "cheesy", and is moreover very doubtful considering three of the adjectives are used figuratively.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 6, 2010 1:19:08 GMT
I'd laugh at myself if I exerted anymore energy than I did talking about such a worthless piece of crap.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 6, 2010 1:21:00 GMT
Yeah, suit yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 6, 2010 19:39:06 GMT
Why do you hurt me Bobby? I've always been loyal to you. I mean...what is this?
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Jan 7, 2010 11:02:30 GMT
Thanks Anasazie. In an interview he mentioned that he chose high contrast B&W after he and his DP looked at several older films and kind of liked the contrast used by Antonioni. Plus I saw a very wide angle shot in the trailer, which raised my curiosity even more. Disappointed to know that HDV is of poor quality even for a plane screen - but I also suspect at the same time that the plane screens are really crappy anyway. Yeah he loves those ultra b&w shots, Rumble Fish contains many of them. The plane screens are defo a bit crappy, but i saw 6 films on me last flight and this one looked the worst. High contrast film feels much more organic than high contrast HDV i reckon, it'll catch up eventually though.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 7, 2010 16:02:51 GMT
The Mirror (Tarkovsky) ***** The Exorcist (Friedkin) *****
The Exorcist is the best and scariest horror film I've ever seen. I love how it starts out very normally, and actually very plain, even bordering on dull, then slowly brings you into the absolute horror. Incredibly well-paced film, and the visual composition (obviously the effects as well) is tops.
Wanna watch more horror films now. Been needing to see The Texas Chainsaw Massacre for quite some time now.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 7, 2010 16:03:58 GMT
Why do you hurt me Bobby? I've always been loyal to you. I mean...what is this? I don't like lists of adjectives passing as criticism. You've proven yourself capable of actual criticism (Anasazie hasn't), so resorting to his approach of pseudo-criticism isn't doing yourself right. I expect it from him. You're capable of better. This is an act of LOVE.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 7, 2010 16:14:12 GMT
Ah, well shucks. *blushes*
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 7, 2010 16:52:31 GMT
I guess I should expand a bit then...
The idea of having Vincent being a "hot head" like his father is a bit primitive to me, and his outburst in the scene early on with him and Joey Zasa in Michael's office, in which Michael whispers to himself "temper like his father" afterward, was very unsubtle, and quite plainly cringe worthy. Another scene which really killed me was the one in Sicily, where Michael is sitting with Kay and receives the news of Don Tommasino's death. We see Kay in the other room shaking her head and saying to herself "it never ends...it never ends...". All true and good that FFC wants to show the characters' true inability to escape the world of organized crime, but he could have handled it MUCH more subtly...I don't understand the need to include things like what I've just talked about with Kay, and the "just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in" things.
The plot of the film doesn't have even a smidgen of power that the first 2 films had, and even if you're going to argue that Coppola attempted to show the falling importance and influence of the family and organized crime, and the falling power of the title of 'the Don', then why didn't he stick to that throughout the entire film? I didn't care about any of the killings at the end of the film, because I didn't care about the plot. It was back and forth between Michael's guilt and quest for legitimacy, the Immobiliare deal, and Mary and Vincent's incestuous relationship. There was no structure to the film, it was just a bunch of ideas floating around with no real passion or delivery. The crowning of Vincent as Don made me want to cry...a huge insult to the crowning of Michael at the end of Part 1. At that point I just wanted the film to be over fast.
The script was god-awful, the cinematography was a huge letdown from the first two, and the acting was terrible by everybody involved. The film never should have been made.
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Jan 7, 2010 19:50:04 GMT
Why do you hurt me Bobby? I've always been loyal to you. I mean...what is this? I don't like lists of adjectives passing as criticism. You've proven yourself capable of actual criticism (Anasazie hasn't), so resorting to his approach of pseudo-criticism isn't doing yourself right. I expect it from him. You're capable of better. This is an act of LOVE. I'm not interested in writing film criticism or taking the time to formulate analytical essays or reviews of films. I'm more interested in spending the time creating art than criticising it, i'm an image maker, not a writer. That's why my comments are always brief. If i have the time and am asked to elaborate (and can even remember the piece well enough to) i will try do so, but mostly can't create the space in life to. I come here for viewing insipiration from a few different posters (sometimes yourself included believe it or not) and the occasional football banter with the Arsenal supporter and as somewhere to display my geeky list obsessions. It's more ike conversation here for me, than literature/writing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 7, 2010 20:04:59 GMT
Speaking of list obsessions, you haven't posted a favorite films list in quite some time. I need viewing inspiration.
|
|