Letterboxd thread: Coffee and cherry pie edition
Post profiles, talk about movies, wish a happy 70th birthday to our good friend and pal Dave
alright lads, rec me some good 90 minute flicks?
watched The Kid yesterday. I liked it. Will probably watch Gold Rush today.
Run Lola Run
The Pit and the Pendulum
Children of the Damned (1960)
>tfw you don't live in a universe where her star kept rising in the 00s and 10s
Anyone wanna gimme some cool anthology film suggestions? Currently downloading The Seven Deadly Sins.
Where to watch Jon Jost's bell diamond?
I had forgotten how goddamn hilarious Delicatessen was.
>This is the favorite film of your friend who thought The Seventh Seal was too boring, Stalker too hard to follow, and Seven Samurai too derivative.
So are you gonna review the film and say why it's bad or just go "look at me im such a cinephile, i know all these foreign films!"?
Trick question because it's the Twin Peaks pilot episode that's the best.
Your favorite reviewers?
you are mean
he is lying so he is mean
you're right I should start doing this more often.
why subject yourself to so many bad movies?
I don't even review movies though :v)
What do you great people of Transboxd think of Inarritu?
I just feel like in particular with Babel and Birdman there's some interesting ideas that are then bogged down by a certain pretentious treatment of the story material while at the same time forcing some sort of gimmicky formal aspect that seems like a needless attempt to be different and "important".
I haven't seen The Revenant personally but it looks to be following in those traditions as well.
He tries too hard to have a distinct, flashy style that is nonetheless impressive. However, his style does not take the material he is working with into consideration. He cares more about making films look impressive as opposed to unified and coherent.
I've seen AP and I liked it. Decent movie.
Technical prowess, yes, so should he not have such high production quality? Is it his fault he can use equipment and can get it?
>interesting ideas that are then bogged down by a certain pretentious treatment of the story material while
I haven't seen Birdman yet (I've seen nearly everything else) but people say this lot when it comes to Birdman but I never really got what they meant with it. They are never really specific, like you aren't either.
>gimmicky formal aspect that seems like a needless attempt to be different and "important".
Why so cynical towards something that's wee bit different than typical mainstream movie making?
>He cares more about making films look impressive as opposed to unified and coherent.
From the films I've seen I don't agree.
I'll wait for a bluray of Revenant (whill be a while) and check it out with Birdman.
It's been so long since I've seen them, but I can't really think of it adding much to it in comparison to just linear storytelling. I never said he was the greatest or even good, I just wondered at the backlash he is getting from Letterboxd 'patrician' review crowd.
Okay yeah sure I can go more in-depth - but I don't really want to spoil it for you because despite my misgivings of it, I still think it's worth a watch.
Anyway - my issues with the story is how it takes an issue that not many of us really experience, the idea of the internal struggles an actor goes through in relation to public scrutiny and their place in the Hollywood filmmaking machine, and makes it seem like the worse thing ever that we should all take pity on.
As well as that it creates a false dichotomy/straw man argument between the idea of "good literary" works and "low-brow filmic" mediums and basically pits them against each other, all while ignoring the fact that the two can go hand in hand.
And while you can argue that this is exactly what the film is supposedly satirising, I feel like it's not an issue to begin with, so it makes the actions and opinions of the characters therein seem almost pointless.
I guess more broadly it raises other issues relating to more specific questions in theatre and acting, all of which seem to be based off of tired cliches and stereotypes that aren't saying anything new - it's just obnoxiously portraying them yet again.
Fair enough, I just think it's important to consider the fact that there is a strong, vocal minority that are off put by his attitude towards directing, and for good reasons. I think a lot of the praise he receives is superficial and excessive.
sorry, missed your point on the formal stuff.
Okay so while this one isn't such a big issue in my head as the other stuff, it just comes across as being a way to distract from the stories themselves that lack substance. A true cynic would even suggest that it's just a way of getting recognition for himself, and not a true artistic statement or experiment. I don't want to say oscar bait because I don't think they apply to specifically to his films, but it definitely seems like a cry for attention to places like Cannes or The Academy.
So ignorance (ignorance of the writer and director, not yours) is your issue with him? Ok, that's what I wanted to hear.
>I feel like it's not an issue to begin with
well high art vs low art is certainly issue even in letterboxd and in /tv/, you can tell from the shit Michael Bay gets (he has been getting a somewhat praise recently?) even in letterboxd or how people (no matter if they are bad) just shit on capeshit because of its cover, no?
I felt no ignorance in Amores Perros, his movie I first saw years ago and stil the one I remember most vividly. Though memories get altered by brain when you go back to them, so take my statement with grain of salt
>, it just comes across as being a way to distract from the stories themselves that lack substance
Hasn't he always had a knack for non-linear storytelling? Even Amores Perros is multiple narratives playing at same time IIRC.
> a cry for attention to places like Cannes or The Academy.
I can't tell if this is applicable since see above^, he has always done stuff like that, from his first movie onwards.
Can you blame him for inauthentic with regards to his non-linear storytelling love, when he has always done it?
Full disclosure - haven't gotten around to seeing Amores Perros, I presume you'd recommend it?
The issue between high brow and low brow I was referring to in Birdman was specifically between literary (and theatrical) and film, sorry I should have made that clearer. And that I would argue is false for both mediums have, since they coexisted, exhibited times where they've taken parts of each other to make pieces that transcend both.
As for comments on films and their respective "highs" and "lows" I'd say is a problem indebted to popular criticism.
The flack Michael Bay and superhero films get are a result of today's upvote groupthink culture (jn my opinion you understand, any anons can shit on me for saying that) and it's usually just based on audience ignorance towards films that are theorised solely on the most shallow and basic interpretations of what's seen on the screen before them.
I am sorry, I can't get webmforretards to work in my Win10.
I don't think watching AP will hurt you. It's from what I remember, his best even if the writing is bit clowny at times. Oh and I agree with you about the whole judging book by its cover interpretation. It's sad phenomenon and will never go away.
I'll check it out, cheers for the suggestion!
And yeah it is pretty annoying, but I guess we've just gotta get used to it.
People enjoy making fun of Michael Bay on places like FB and reddit because it makes them feel like real smart film critics who can totally diss a film as obviously bad as Transformers, amirite guise?
But yeah, it sucks that that style of thought is the norm.
Mine would be Eraserhead, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me, and Inland Empire
Got it working anon.
It cuts to Bond and her talking after this 4 second bit.
Beautiful lady desu.
I don't even like stinky French girls
improved bitrate >>65124607
>The flack Michael Bay and superhero films get are a result of today's upvote groupthink culture (jn my opinion you understand, any anons can shit on me for saying that) and it's usually just based on audience ignorance towards films that are theorised solely on the most shallow and basic interpretations of what's seen on the screen before them.
The difference is that, like his films or not, Bay has a distinct auteurial style that he brings to the table while capweshit movies are cookie-cutter, with each gingerbread man looking exactly identical except a different spandex suit has been drawn on each with frosting
The reason for each capeshit flick looking and feeling the same despite being shot by different directors-for-hire is because the films don't exist as a dialogue between auteur and observer, they exist to sell a brand (the brand in this case being capeshit)
Even the Transformer movies, which I suspect were either contractual or he agreed to do so he could gather enough money and clout to focus on smaller more personal projects, bear his authorial stamp although they are far and away the worst things he's done. I would recommend Bad Boys 2, Pain and Gain, and 13 Hours for Bay at his best
It's the same argument anyway, judging book by its cover.
>Feeling the same
TWS and Guardians legitimately felt different to me in a positive way.
Now Iron Men, I can't tell which one is which and what was shot by who
I'd recommend Armageddon as one of Bay's best. It's incredible how good he is at ripping emotion out of terrible actors and cheesy ridiculous things.
Who is your favorite cinematographer?
Which film has your favorite cinematography?
People ITT would probably shit all over him but I will always like Sven Nykvist, both his b&w (Winter Light) and his color (The Sacrifice and Fanny and Alexander). I think Carlo Di Palma could have had a much better career if he started earlier. Him helping Antonioni gracefully transfer to color is underrated.
>Michael Bay made a good movie.... That's something to jump for joy about in itself. But Michael Bay made a good movie that was released in January? This has got to be the official sign of the apocalypse.
>13 Hours is a pretty solid start to 2016. Let's all give Michael Bay a round of applause.
Follow me and I'll follow you edition, hope this thread isn't dead yet.
Anyone got recommendations for some decent films so I can make myself seem patrician?
Can someone talk to me about Possession? I'm not sure I truly understood it.
I wrote my thoughts on it here. Oh yeah what's the deal with the man in the pink socks?
>ever beliving what a cunt says rather than looking at her actions
Serious question, how old are you? Understanding why your question was silly requires some life experience, as does understanding the film
it's pretty much just about how your girlfriend/wife would rather fuck anybody than you if you are not constantly keeping them entertained, whether that be some dickhead like Heinrich or literally a monster
I don't have any, but these are my one star movies.
Working on getting my watch list under 100 this year. Down 6 so far!
>900 hours in Paint.
Check your mail inbox.
The biggest problem with Letterboxd is that people can't use the rating system for shit.
Funny thing about seeing Macbeth is that I refered to it as The Scottish Film 48 hours leading up to seeing it, knowing the curse on it. The boyfriend also did that.
We were chatting to my roomie about seeing it and he said the name of the movie out loud.
After the movie my boyfriend and I turn our phones back on and get a text from my roomie that he was vomiting and shitting so much he had to go to the hospital.
The Curse is Real!
I just found the whole movie really annoying and just plain awful
Im graduating from high school in finland in couple of months. After that im going to study directing in university
Never fucking reply to me again unless you're contributing to the thread.
I also don't whether The Room belongs in here or five stars
I was just trying to start a discussion you dickhead
>The Amazing Spider-Man 2
>Texas Chainsaw Remake
>As Above, So Below
>Die Another Day
>Die Hard 5
Don't be ridiculous. I'm not a huge fan of these movies either, but there's absolutely no way any sane human being can honestly think they are among the absolute worst, and on the same level as bullshit like Home Alone 4 and Sharknado.
In other words, just another LB user who cannot use the rating system for shit.
If I have kids we're going watch this and The Road to El Dorado every weekend.
Any other essential so bad its good/so bad its bad movies? No problem child 2 pls.
>The Road to El Dorado
Is that that light-hearted animated children's film about the largest and most violent genocide in human history?
>In other words, just another LB user who cannot use the rating system for shit.
Actually yes I can, all those films you listed are horrible, please tell me why they deserve more than half a star
i follow people who try to say something about thigns they liked and why they liked
why so much anger in anon?
>Listening to any other black metal than the genre's Magnum Opus
First (and most importantly), Antonioni is the ultimate decider of all things that end up in or take place in an Antonioni film and though Di Palma was his greatest collaborator he was always second to Antonioni when they worked together. Second of all it would be absurd to shit on Nykvist (I'm personally not a fan but anyone interested in narrative filmmaking /should/ hold the guy as one of the best).
>not listening to Deathcruch
All of Mayhem is at least good. Listening to CSDM only is entry level as fuck.
Dis Hoe Amaranth Done Suckt Tha Soul Outta His Dick Lmao
I don't know, man. Maybe as thematic aftermaths of World War II, or maybe as feminist films, or maybe...
One is cinematographically infantile in its criticisms, the other is absurdist and austere. I'll take the latter.
Currently Tsar is not fit to serve popcorn at the cinema, much less talk about film with someone truly invested in it beyond a status signal.
And here he proves my point.
If there's room on your schedule for more, I'd also recommend Eraserhead. Yeah, it's a bit of a cliche at this point, and people love to shit on Lynch for perhaps being weird for the sake of being weird - but it is unsettling in a way that few other films have since been able to replicate.
I can't think of another action movie within the past 10 years that made me feel as tense and uncomfortable as Sicario. The performances of Emily Blunt and Del Toro alone are both Oscar worthy. Every character was developed in an impeccable way, almost like a deconstruction as the movie progressed. Not to mention the cinematography was some of the most beautiful since Road to Perdition.
hey guise, here is me grading papers at the beach.
Can someone tell me what exactly letterboxd is. I use IMDB to rank my movies. I know IMDB has shit taste, but I don't care about their rating anyway. So what's the advantage of letterboxd?
>"oscar-worthy" as some mark of talent
i guess it's 10 for each half star and if it surpasses a tenth it gets the next star rating
he said on labuzas podcast that the ratings mean more if you rate out of 100 and you try to be conservative about points
What does Letterfriends think of '¨the Assassin'
Why do you think it was weak? As opposed to many of the reviews I find in LB, I liked it's slow pacing and the few 'action bits' it had were decent (though there's a very bad cut in a rooftop fight to cover up an error)
but I need to get back on watching House M.D.
make new one i will dumb tstuff