Gaff
Staff Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by Gaff on Aug 4, 2014 12:11:07 GMT
As the title implies, give us your frank and honest opinion about the last thing you saw. Preferably in as few words as possible, because years of videogaming has left me with the attention span of a gnat.
I shall now attempt to lead by example!
Branded to Kill (1967)
A darkly absurd new-wave crime thriller from Seijun Suzuki, following a hamster-cheeked hitman with a fetish for the smell of boiling rice, as he battles his way to the top of his profession. Even with a synopsis like that, the film was considerably more out there than I'd expected, almost predicting David Lynch's Blue Velvet in its surreal humour and heavily sexualised imagery. It lacks the pop-art joie de vivre of Suzuki's previous Tokyo Drifter, but this is a far more taught and ambitious affair, oozing psychedelic cool from every pore.
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Aug 4, 2014 17:53:41 GMT
Just got myself a new projector and tried it out yesterday on The Europa Report and Dredd. I was pleasantly surprised with both.
The Europa Report
A refreshingly low-key and realistic sci-fi movie about the crew of a near-future spacecraft heading to Europa to investigate possible signs of life. The grounded depiction of space travel, along with the minute attention to detail and the mix of drama and effects work with stock footage creates a really cool documentary style. The film is definitely short on explosion-walks and backflips; almost all the conflict derives from technical issues, the challenges and sacrifices of surviving in a vacuum, and the slow-burn cosmic horror of the emptiness of it all, so it's definitely not an action film. However, the cold, quiet sterility definitely adds to the atmosphere and is reminiscent of 60s/70s sci-fi like 2001 or Silent Running. Towards the end, there is a touch of Alien to the proceedings, but its pitched more towards the thrill of discovery rather than scares. Definitely worth a look if you like sci-fi but are tired of invulnerable action heroes and explosion fetishism.
Dredd
I've been meaning to see this for ages, but I never seemed to get around to it until now: I think perhaps the subconscious trauma of the 1995 Sly Stallone vehicle was holding me back. Thankfully, the 2012 movie is a whole different ball game. Karl Urban is great as the title character; he plays Dredd not as an action hero, but as a sort of indefatigable blue-collar grunt who slogs through battles because its his job and that's all he's got, like a cross between a fireman, a soldier and a particularly officious traffic warden. It works really well, and makes him kind of relateable. I'd also say it captures the zeitgeist of the comic a lot better, conversely because it actually tones down the comic strip elements. Weird. I think it's because - for a satirical sci-fi comic - Judge Dredd was often shockingly gritty and grounded, but translated directly to screen would still seem pretty arch and camp within the medium of film. Dialling back the OTT stuff retains, the grittiness compared to other films. His rookie sidekick was pretty good, and had a few genuinely touching/disturbing scenes. Setting it all in one skyscraper added a gauntlet-like excitement and restrained any temptation to over-blow it like they did in 95. Once again, good to see a sci-fi movie that isn't all physics-bending miraculous escapes and shit.
|
|
Gaff
Staff Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by Gaff on Aug 5, 2014 12:29:44 GMT
I still kick myself for not having gone to see Dredd at the cinema.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Whitehouse on Aug 5, 2014 18:06:22 GMT
Dredd is excellent. Really want to see The Europa Report, sounds like it'd be right up my street. Guardians of the galaxy (2014) Bold, brash, and carrying with it a bucket-load of heart, Guardians of the Galaxy is Star Wars done right. I had been hyped for this movie since it was announced, but it was only when the trailers released that I genuinely started to believe. What could have been a generic space adventure action film ended up being a vivid, beautiful blockbuster in the hands of director James Gunn. While part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, GOTG really stands on its own two feet (or trunks) as a quirky, often hilarious, action romp which never bores, and on more than one occasion will bring a tear to even the most mechanical of eyes. The cast is brilliant, the direction unique and daring, and the writing manages to introduce an entire galaxy of worlds and characters without requiring five lead-up films as The Avengers did. Is it perfect? Probably not - the villain is a little bland and there are a couple of moments where you really have to suspend your disbelief (beyond a talking Raccoon) - but GOTG takes everything that was best in Star Wars, Firefly, and The Magnificent 7, and then adds its own unique spin, reaching dizzying heights most Hollywood blockbusters can only dream of, while at its core promoting ideals of friendship and bravery. TLDR: In a galaxy of its own - one of the best films I've seen this year.
|
|
|
Post by bossmacphail on Aug 5, 2014 21:51:46 GMT
Filth (2013)Just watched Filth as it's just appeared on Netflix. As soon as any relatively modern film appears on Netflix I dash to view it, in some desperate hope of attaining the feeling that "I'm getting my moneys worth". This film is based upon an Irvine Welsh novel that came off the back of a string of other films based off Welsh's work, hoping to garner even a teeny slice of trainspotting's success. It's not trainspotting that's for sure. James McAvaboy plays a drug addict police inspector, a role he went on to reprise in Days Of Future past, but in that film his legs were wobbly and he had psychic powers. Anyway i'll keep this brief, McAvoy delivers a sterling performance, he brilliantly portrays a character suffering from increasing mental problems and general bastardness. Sadly the core of the novel hasn't made it intact in the translation process and as a result the films twist feels rather flimsy, lacking the punch and relevance of the books. Ocassionally hits 4 stars, but generally stays firmly in the 3 stars out of 5 camp. The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)It's not often these days that you can say a film is a genuine delight. However I would encourage you to go away and watch this film, just so that you can get a slice of delight (not the shite Turkish variety). The absolute stand out thing about this film is Wraith (if he wants to pronounce Ralph, Wraith, he can do it on his own time the pretentious cock) Finnes, he plays the hillarious and vain Concierge of the titular hotel. Although i hear in real life he is generally a bad bastard, in this he is seriously likable and you immediately forgive any of his generally selfishness related character flaws. Also everyone is in this film including Big Jeff Goldblum and Harvey Keitel and Adrien Brody and Bill Murry and Edward Norton And Willem Dafoe. I could go on. F. Murray Abraham is in it and also Jason Schwartzman and Tilda Swinton and a couple of other idiots like Jude Law and Owen Wilson, but dont worry they are hardly in it. Artistically its everything you would expect from a Wes Anderson film, the film looks breathtaking throughout and it's a shining example that film making with actual film is still very much relevant, the grain from the organic film stock makes the film even more alive and vibrant. I rented this from iTunes in 1080p, but be warned, the film changes aspect ratios to indicate a change in time having occurred, it goes from 16:9 (like a modern tv set), to 21:9 (cinema widescreen), to 4:3 (Square, old school tv shape). The film spends most of its time in 4:3 and i think some people might fight the large vertical bars left and right of frame rather off putting. It's a shortish film running in the hour and a half mark, so watching it doesn't require tons of commitment. I give this film a solid 4 out of 5, with ocassional glimpses of a whopping 5 out of 5! Wish i'd seen Grand Budapest at the cinema...
|
|
|
Post by bossmacphail on Aug 5, 2014 22:02:34 GMT
I'm going to do a Columbo and say one last thing... Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes 2014Another entry into the "Ha ha creationists, I bet this annoys you!" collection, this movie is generally pretty unoffensive and watchable. It's not quite middle of the road, but it doesn't offer anything new either. This guy, I dont remember his characters name, plays this science guy (who is basically a poor mans Chris Pratt, except that he isn't even funny, Chris Pratt should batter this guy so that he doesnt take any of Chris' work), who wants to fix a hydroelectric dam in order to restore power to a nearby city of survivors. But the king of the Apes, played by Andy Serkins is wary of science guy and science guy has to gain his trust, problem is, he is all out of bananas. The CGI is first rate though and you can really see how far motion capture has come. My biggest issue with this film is it's aspect ratio. They have actually shot the film digitally in 16:9. This will be super easy for them when they come to make the Blu Ray as it will fit perfectly on a standard TV. However, this totally doesnt work at the cinema, where you are left with large black voids either side of the picture, this is not forgivable as an artistic choice, like in Grand Budapest, which is at least partly in 21:9. It made me resent paying to see it at the cinema and it spent the whole time shouting out to me and me alone, no one else in the cinema seemed to care.. But as soon as it was over, I led a bloody ape rebellion against the studio. They better not make this a regular thing, I will go Bananas... 3 out of 5 btw.
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Aug 5, 2014 22:07:38 GMT
My biggest issue with this film is it's aspect ratio. They have actually shot the film digitally in 16:9. This will be super easy for them when they come to make the Blu Ray as it will fit perfectly on a standard TV. However, this totally doesnt work at the cinema, where you are left with large black voids either side of the picture, this is not forgivable as an artistic choice, like in Grand Budapest, which is at least partly in 21:9. It made me resent paying to see it at the cinema and it spent the whole time shouting out to me and me alone, no one else in the cinema seemed to care.. But as soon as it was over, I led a bloody ape rebellion against the studio. They better not make this a regular thing, I will go Bananas... Isn't this the fault of the cinema, though? Typically they're supposed to close the curtains to the edges of the frame so you don't see any wasted screen space, right? I saw it at the Vue in Inverness and didn't see any black voids. Sounds like a typical Cineworld shiteshow to me!
|
|
|
Post by bossmacphail on Aug 5, 2014 22:11:32 GMT
My biggest issue with this film is it's aspect ratio. They have actually shot the film digitally in 16:9. This will be super easy for them when they come to make the Blu Ray as it will fit perfectly on a standard TV. However, this totally doesnt work at the cinema, where you are left with large black voids either side of the picture, this is not forgivable as an artistic choice, like in Grand Budapest, which is at least partly in 21:9. It made me resent paying to see it at the cinema and it spent the whole time shouting out to me and me alone, no one else in the cinema seemed to care.. But as soon as it was over, I led a bloody ape rebellion against the studio. They better not make this a regular thing, I will go Bananas... Isn't this the fault of the cinema, though? Typically they're supposed to close the curtains to the edges of the frame so you don't see any wasted screen space, right? I saw it at the Vue in Inverness and didn't see any black voids. Sounds like a typical Cineworld shiteshow to me! Alright PR Percy, how much are the studio paying you? My real objection here is that 1.85/ 16:9 has never felt very cinematic to me, i've always associated it more with tv. That was the whole point of going super widescreen in the first place, to make people want to come to the cinema and not stay at home. LONG LIVE CINEMASCOPE.
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Aug 5, 2014 22:21:17 GMT
IMDB has it as 1.85:1, same as yer Godfathers and Saving Ryan's Privates and the like. Are you *sure* it wisnae Cineworld titsing the picture up?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Whitehouse on Aug 5, 2014 22:27:51 GMT
This should be interesting *ducks for cover*
|
|
|
Post by bossmacphail on Aug 5, 2014 22:32:42 GMT
1.85:1 isn't 16:9, 16:9 is 1.78. 21:9 is about 2.35:1. I just think for big blockbusters, 21:9 is the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Aug 5, 2014 22:43:18 GMT
Yeah, 16:9 is near enough 1.85:1 (1.77:1) but I feel there's still a qualitative difference in that 0.08 chunk of ratio Serously, though, I see what you're saying, but I grew up on about half or more of my favourite films being 1.85:1. It didn't bother me in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (the profusion of "of the"-s hurt more!). I can see why it made sense for the movie: most of its lead characters are a mix of bulky, stocky monkeys (sounds like Hungry Hippos ripoff ) and tall, lanky humans, and I guess it fits them all better in the frame together, same reason they use it for the Avengers and stuff like that. I like Cinemascope too, but it honestly didn't bother me in Apes.
|
|
|
Post by bossmacphail on Aug 5, 2014 22:54:18 GMT
Unfortunatley its only my hope that 21:9 sticks around, but i feel we may one day see it dead.
The issue is that shooting 21:9 is a bastard of a process and it's only done by optically squeezing a rectangular image onto a square. The lenses required to do this are costly and fiddly. Quite often 16:9 is cropped vertically to make it the same shape as 21:9 but it only makes it the same shape and doesnt have any of the image characteristics of anamorphic, like horizontal flare and stretched bokeh.
I guess the issue is these days is due to mixed formats, Avengers for example, though largely shot on the Alexa, also has some 5DMk2 and 7D footage thrown in there and 1.85 is probably the easiest shape to choose to avoid heavy cropping.
Though it can still be done, Need for Speed, though not a good film used all the following formats and still managed 2.35:1
Arri Alexa M Arri Alexa Plus Black Magic Cinema Camera Canon EOS C500 Canon EOS-1D C GoPro HD Hero 3 View Factor Novo
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Aug 5, 2014 23:13:26 GMT
Totally agree, I don't doubt it's a pain in the ass getting true 2.33/2.35:1, and most of the time the look is totally worth it. But I do think there is an aesthetic case for 1.85:1 even in some blockbuster-type movies, depending upon the subject matter and the type of vibe they're going for. I still think not every movie necessarily fits or benefits the big spacious landscaepeyness of a big Cinemascope western, for all its epicness, there's a lot of breathing space I don't find it as tight and tense sometimes(unless we're looking at big Sergio Leone squinty-eye shots, hah!). Psycho and Night of the Living Dead both used 1.33:1 to ramp up the claustrophobia IIRC, and they are all the better for it (I know that's a totally different type of film, though, but you get the idea).
|
|
Gaff
Staff Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by Gaff on Aug 6, 2014 15:29:20 GMT
Having been fortunate enough to see Grand Budapest in the cinema, I actually didn't find the changing aspect ratios all that noticeable. I was vaguely aware of it happening, but maybe seeing the film in a darkened hall like that, you're less aware of where the screen borders are? What struck me most about the way it was filmed is that virtually every shot is aligned to the centre of the screen, so your eye is always naturally drawn into the middle. Aside from possibly taking attention away from the aspect, it seemed like a real display of commitment that Anderson was willing to do that right the way through the film.
|
|