Movie Talk (New Films, Old Films... doesn't matter) (74 Viewers)

CrimsonianKing

Count Mbangula
Jan 16, 2013
27,389
I link the two films together, for the very same reason. That tree in The Fountain. Also, the fluid-based visual effects developed for The Tree of Life by Peter and Chris Parks were reminiscent of their similar effects in working on The Fountain.

I've never been much of an Aronofsky fan. His first film Pi, I did like, I found it interesting. Was never really sure what to make of Requiem for a Dream and whether I liked it or not. And I thought The Wrestler and Black Swan, though not bad films, were massively overrated. Noah was hot garbage, better left unmentioned.

That being said. I quite liked The Fountain. Something about it just caught my attention, perhaps its boldness. It was a rather beautiful film too. The soundtrack with Clint Mansell, Kronos Quartet, and Mogwai was excellent. And for it's quite modest budget, the cinematography and visuals were, as I said, rather beautiful. Jackman and Weisz in lead roles in this sort of film, could have perhaps been improved upon, although I don't think they did a bad job, they were quite good in fact.

Some critics complained about the confusion arising from the blending of Mayan, Biblical, Buddhist, Taoist and New Age iconography... The jumping from storyline to storyline, flashback, to future, to present, repeated, and so on. I found it to be seductive, this golden mist of confusion. I like how daring and bold it was. I like how Aronofsky stays away from the middle distance shots of everyday life, and instead seems to oscillate between close-up and distance. It makes for a lovely juxtaposition. Anyways, it's the only film of Aronofsky that I really do like, and I understand how it's gained a bit of cult following, since initially being met with rather mixed reactions.

Malick, is another that I'm not a huge fan of, for the most part. To The Wonder; Days of Heaven; Badlands; The New World are all mediocre films in my opinion, even if Days of Heaven is gorgeously shot.

But The Tree of Life and The Thin Red Line are stunning films. Malick makes beautiful films, with stunning visuals and cinematography. The four films I mentioned were lacking in other areas. These last two though, they're brilliant. Bold, ambitious, massive, and about similar themes of life and death, gain and loss. Both these films were ridiculously beautiful in my opinion. I just don't see how anyone could suggest otherwise. The Tree of Life might not be someone's cup of tea for various reasons, but at the very least there should be respect for just how stunningly beautiful the film is.
Good stuff :tup: although I didn't think either The Wrestler or The Black Swan were overrated. I enjoyed both a lot. Noah on the other hand was a piece of shit. And Pi is a cult classic, weird as fuck but fantastic.

The way i feel about Malick as a Director is the same way i feel about Syamalan, they made one or two good movies and a lot of shit.
 

Post Ironic

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2013
42,253
Good stuff :tup: although I didn't think either The Wrestler or The Black Swan were overrated. I enjoyed both a lot. Noah on the other hand was a piece of $#@!. And Pi is a cult classic, weird as $#@! but fantastic.

The way i feel about Malick as a Director is the same way i feel about Syamalan, they made one or two good movies and a lot of $#@!.
The Wrestler for me was probably partly my dislike for Mickey Rourke. I can't stand the guy, never could. So the acting wasn't really my cup of tea and the film itself just didn't do it for me.

I liked Black Swan more than The Wrestler... I probably should have enjoyed it as a very good film, as I really like Vincent Cassel and Natalie Portman, and the story is quite interesting. Hard to say now, thinking back on the film why I thought it was so overrated. I didn't think the cinematography was as good as with certain others of his films. And probably influenced in the negative by having to listen to so many people heap praise upon it.
 

JuveJay

Senior Signor
Moderator
Mar 6, 2007
75,546
Yeah, the three hours one is the director's cut. I haven't seen the short version, and I don't think I'm going to. But you nail it imo. Q'orianka Kilcher (what a name) was almost angel-like.
That was just good cinematography, part of it drawing in the male audience by making an older-looking teenager into an ethereal nymphet. They did exactly the same with Dominique Swain in Lolita. Hollywood is shameless but it's only a movie.
 

Ocelot

Midnight Marauder
Jul 13, 2013
18,943
5 years ago or when I started watching The Wrestler I turned it off after like 20-25 minutes. :D I couldn't stand it.
Same :D
It might not even be a bad movie, but nothing for me.

Btw gonna watch Tree of Life as soon as I can, probably after Mafia is over :D Wanted to watch it in the cinema when it came out, but never got to it and forgot about it.
 

CrimsonianKing

Count Mbangula
Jan 16, 2013
27,389
The Wrestler for me was probably partly my dislike for Mickey Rourke. I can't stand the guy, never could. So the acting wasn't really my cup of tea and the film itself just didn't do it for me.

I liked Black Swan more than The Wrestler... I probably should have enjoyed it as a very good film, as I really like Vincent Cassel and Natalie Portman, and the story is quite interesting. Hard to say now, thinking back on the film why I thought it was so overrated. I didn't think the cinematography was as good as with certain others of his films. And probably influenced in the negative by having to listen to so many people heap praise upon it.
I definitely enjoyed Black Swan much more than The Wrestler for the exact opposite reason. I knew nothing about it so expected nothing from it.

Sometimes the fault is on us for building such an expectation for things that it clouds our judgement and we end up being unfair critics. I do it all the time.

I've got a friend who's just a flick crazie like us and he's been constantly telling me not to build up incredibly high expectations about Interstellar just because Tarantino compared it to Tarkovsky's art, just so i don't get disappointed even though it's obviously a good movie.
 

Völler

Always spot on
May 6, 2012
23,091
Thought The Wrestler was quite good. Rourke knocks it out of the park as far as I'm concerned.
:agree:

- - - Updated - - -

I've got a friend who's just a flick crazie like us and he's been constantly telling me not to build up incredibly high expectations about Interstellar just because Tarantino compared it to Tarkovsky's art, just so i don't get disappointed even though it's obviously a good movie.
There's absolutely no reason to compare it to Tarkovsky. It's a Nolan movie. It's ambitious, but in a mainstream Hollywood way.

Also, if you look at the quote, he's not exactly comparing the film as a whole to Tarkovsky and Malick:
“It’s been a while since somebody has come out with such a big vision to things,” Tarantino told The Guardian. “Even the elements, the fact that dust is everywhere, and they’re living in this dust bowl that is just completely enveloping this area of the world. That’s almost something you expect from Tarkovsky or Malick, not a science fiction adventure movie.”
 

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
75,709
American Sniper, it's pretty mediocre. Kind of propaganda-ish. Eastwood's politics seep through a bit. Though it does at times (like twice) the film does try to make interesting points about the separation between the US population and the chicken hawks that send troops overseas.
 

Post Ironic

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2013
42,253
I've got a friend who's just a flick crazie like us and he's been constantly telling me not to build up incredibly high expectations about Interstellar just because Tarantino compared it to Tarkovsky's art, just so i don't get disappointed even though it's obviously a good movie.
I've never been a big fan of Tarantino. Always seemed like this loud-mouthed asshole, who just wants to exploit the modern day craze for violence and transgression, and racial and ethnic tensions, without actually exploring in-depth or giving meaning to such things. Surface level, shallow, not really all there if you peel back that first layer and look below. But then, this was mostly from watching post-2000 films.

However, in giving a closer watch to his early films, Reservoir Dogs, Jackie Brown, Pulp Fiction, I would revise that and suggest that he went from creating interesting, multi-layered, and perhaps great films, where there were layers below all that surface insanity, to what i referred to above, where he's basically ignored providing context, depth, and meaning.

I found the Kill Bill films, Death Proof mind-numbingly tedious. Inglourious Bastards was a bit of an improvement but still was lacking compared to his early work, and Django Unchained was closest of his latest films to standing up next to his early work, but still not quite there. It's as though he bought into his own hype too much after his first 2-3 films and just forgot what made him a very good filmmaker, and he's only rediscovering it now. So I'm interested to see how his next film Hateful Eight turns out.

I always liked this quote on Tarantino by Nick Broomfield and found it rather apt.

“It’s like watching a schoolboy’s fantasy of violence and sex, which normally Quentin Tarantino would be wanking alone to in his bedroom while this mother is making his baked beans downstairs. Only this time he’s got Harvey Weinstein behind him and it’s on at a million screens.” :lol:
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 64)