The Last Film You Saw in the Cinema?


(titoli) #1041

You are all out of your minds, PR is great, forcrissakes it has Dwight Yoakam in kickass role! :wink:
(tense relationship between him and other two stooges, Whitaker and Leto, is what the movie is all about, and not to mention the movie also has Kristen Stewart’s best role)


(scherpschutter) #1042

That’s simply a stylistic device, used to create a certain distance: “I” is too personal, “we” is more general (in French “on” is often used in similar constructions, the corresponding English “one” is too rare).


(Stanton) #1043

But it should be personal. I think critics should generally write in the first person. But actually they rarely do.


(scherpschutter) #1044

I don’t know. I don’t like to many “eyes” in an article.

Some say an article (on a movie or whatever subject) should be as neutral as possible; I can’t agree with that either, as a reader i always want to see a judgment, a conclusion or whatever. But too much personal opinion kills a text for me. They call that type of writing the “I culture”: I think, I find, I’m sure of this, I’m sure of that. As a reviewer of films and novels, I always try to point what I think is good and I what I think is not good in a movie or novel, and in doing so i try to be as objective as possible (if some very personal thing is involved - for instance not being able to stand a certain actor - I mention it). In the end a judgement is of course personal, but it can be based on acquired knowledge and insight. I never write on things I don’t know anything about (in fact I did that a couple of times and it turned out to be a bad experience)


(John Welles) #1045

Gone Girl (Fincher/14)

AS the release date nearer, my anticipation for this film increased; it certainly seemed much more promising than Fincher’s previous effort (The Girl with Dragon Tattoo). While the second at twist was spoiled for me ahead of time, the film in fact pre-empts it and really kicks into high gear after it at any rate. Some of the film is very, very good - the whole opening procedural part, with Ben Affleck as the suspected killer of his wife and Kim Dickens as the intelligent cop. Fincher can shoot this kind of thing to perfection; sure, it’s at the end of the day, high-end television, but nevertheless thrilling. Performances are note-perfect, and particularly praise must go to Carrie Coon as Affleck’s sister. The mid-act twist however, suddenly introduces a whole new layer to the film, the movie then progressing in parallel plotlines. Arguably it’s all improbable how it proceeds from then on, but I think it’s quite apt to describe it as “absurdist”, Fincher using the verisimilitude to make a very intriguing and caustic investigation of relationships, post-crash of '08 in modern America, that is undoubtedly pessimistic and intentionally exaggerated but seems to ring true nonetheless. Plus, there’s a murder scene that is one of the best things he’s ever done: it brings abject horror back into the murder scene, which has been prettified and trivialised over the decades. It’s stunning technique, the camera reacting like a shocked voyeur, arcing round the scene, blacking out as though it’s blinking in disbelief, a reading that fits in well with the film’s commentary on the media (even if that satire isn’t particularly groundbreaking). Fincher has found a screenplay (by Gillian Flynn, who wrote the same-self novel) that gives depth to this direction and not just an empty exercise in style. Certain aspects of the movie are none too original, but it’s always, always engrossing and both technique (cinematography, music) and acting is excellent, and Rosamund Pike has the most fascinating female role in the movies this year (which actually says a lot about Hollywood, sadly).


(titoli) #1046

Nightcrawler (2014)

Really breath of fresh air. It is basically a satire on modern media and modern socio-business structure and cuture, but it works well as action thriller too (there is a lot of that Dodge Challenger from the poster in the movie). Gyllenhaal is great, it’s almost a one-man-show, but Riz Ahmed as his sidekick is great too. At moments funny at moments disturbing and scary, this dynamic and dark satire is recommended.


(El Topo) #1047

[size=12pt]Fury - David Ayer[/size]

http://s246.photobucket.com/user/samoracorreia/media/semnome_zps1c6aa5b5.png.html

Just watched war flick Fury, and wasn’t totally unsatisfied, it’s a good war movie, that could have been even more effective to be better.
There’s nothing actually new, still the recycling is not the worst I’ve seen around. The director didn’t waste too much time with moral dilemmas, in that aspect is very straightforward, but not so much for the viewer not to miss the characters lack of depth (that’s where the clichés enter, to replace character’s depth). Also the romantic issue with one of the soldiers falling for a local girl, went a little out of general context, and really adds nothing to the film. In the cinema felt that the film was a bit overlong.
Liked the cast, even LeBoeuf (if this was the Dirty Dozen he would had been Telly Savalas), Pitt is on the way to replace Robert Redford, at least his trying, but seems a bit too old for the part, of course he would have been Lee Marvin.
The best of the film are the action scenes that’s where the director felt comfortable, even if from a pure military point of view the last scene is pretty much unrealistic, with so many panzerfaust around, even the most untrained troops …ups spoilers.
Really not a bad film (not a good or brilliant one either) in the sense that could have been a waste of my time - it wasn’t - it’s a well done one nice to watch, kind a todays version or actualization from those war films of the 60’s, but even if today they have the real original period WWII tanks to show, I still miss films like Kelly’s heroes.
Not the best film about tank warfare I’ve seen, that would go the claustrophobic Israeli film Lebanon.
In conclusion good recycling is always better than bad recycling, but it’s still recycling, pity the director had to invent more than necessary.


(gringo_bastardo) #1048

Oh dear. Propably “casino royale” I have not gone to cinema for years because hate to hear mobiles ringing and people munching popcorn etc…


(John Welles) #1049

Not that I’ve seen the entirety of Fincher’s filmography, I can rank his ten films. I must admit to enjoying all of them, to varying degrees, and even the lower tiered films here have aspects to recommend them.

  1. Seven
  2. Zodiac
  3. Gone Girl
  4. The Game
  5. The Social Network
  6. Alien[sup]3[/sup] (Assembly Cut)
  7. Fight Club
  8. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
  9. Panic Room
  10. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Surveying his career thus, it reinforces my idea that he’s the best studio director working, who like many filmmakers from the thirties/forties/fifties relies on a good script to propel his film beyond being merely well-crafted. In fact it would be interesting to see what would happen if he authored his own screenplay; but for the time being, no one in America is making thrillers as good as him.


(Stanton) #1050

Fincher is much more than a studio director. I assume he controls his films. Well most of them …


(scherpschutter) #1051

I remember an interview in which Tarantino claims that Fincher, unlike himself, is only a director, not a ‘film maker’.
I don’t know, apart from the author theory, we now seem to get a film maker theory. Fincher has only two (minor) writing credits on IMDB, writing seems not to be his forte.

@John | Rather mow marks for Fight Club.


(John Welles) #1052

Sure he has control - I assume he gets final cut on all his projects these days, but he plays by the system. He makes movies with big stars, based on big books or with high concepts and is allowed large budgets by virtue of the fact that his movies make a lot of money. Yet his “authorship” as I view it, comes through the treatment of his material, not the subjects themselves, which he doesn’t write and often come from antecedent sources, which I think points to some form of comparison with other studio “auteurs” of the past.

@ Sherp:
Fight Club’s a good film and it certainly caught a zeitgeist and while it’s better than some of the films higher up the list (like Alien[sup]3[/sup] for instance), it’s not one I find myself returning to.


(titoli) #1053

As I have seen (well, not exactly) all of the listed, it’s opportunity to do another list, and we all like the lists do we :wink:

Here it goes:

  1. Fight Club
  2. Seven
  3. Alien3
  4. Panic Room
  5. The Game
  6. Zodiac
  7. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
  8. *The Social Network
  9. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

I LOVED Fight Club and Seven and now after time has passed Fight Club remains one of THE my generation’s movies (along Traninpotting etc) and Seven remains a great thriller. Alien3 and Panic Rooms are underrated, I love those too, I think I would rather return to PR than to The Game although that is maybe not objective.

I would have loved Zodiac if I was not bother that it ‘borrows’ so much from the magnificent Memories of Murder. Although Zodiac was executed masterfully that’s when I started to have my doubts about Fincher which were only magnified with each following movie. I hated that Forrest Gump wannabe, I’ve only watched half of the Social Network and never bothered to finish it, and all I got for The Girl with Dragon Tattoo was “whatever” (apart from being slightly annoyed by the taming of the original name). I am open for the possibility that Gone Girl which I have yet to see will revive my love for his movies.


(Stanton) #1054

[quote=“scherpschutter, post:1051, topic:2027”]I remember an interview in which Tarantino claims that Fincher, unlike himself, is only a director, not a ‘film maker’.
I don’t know, apart from the author theory, we now seem to get a film maker theory. Fincher has only two (minor) writing credits on IMDB, writing seems not to be his forte.[/quote]

A filmmaker has not to write his films, but mostly he co-writes them though, well to a certain degree, not necessarily with a writing credit, but to the amount that he changes what does not work. and if he isn’t able to make the necessary changes himself he hires another writer, often also uncredited. A filmmaker uses writers like he uses editors. composers, actors, cameramen etc.

The right for the final cut is much more important than a screenplay.


(scherpschutter) #1055

[quote=“Stanton, post:1054, topic:2027”]A filmmaker has not to write his films, but mostly he co-writes them though, well to a certain degree, not necessarily with a writing credit, but to the amount that he changes what does not work. and if he isn’t able to make the necessary changes himself he hires another writer, often also uncredited. A filmmaker uses writers like he uses editors. composers, actors, cameramen etc.

The right for the final cut is much more important than a screenplay.[/quote]

Don’t know, I remember Tarantino using the term differently; he thought a director had to have at least a hand in the writing of the movie. Don’t know who coined the term and if there is a strict definition of it (like “author” it seems open for interpretation).

@ John | I have the same ideas about Fight Club, I didn’t dislike it, thought it was a well-made movie, but never went back to it. Don’t know how I would rank it, talking about Fincher’s oeuvre. I prefer it to Seven, but thought The Game was better (but haven’t seen that in a while either)


(Stanton) #1056

Such terms are always open for interpretation, as is the general question who is the author of a film.

And writing credits often enough don’t mean much.

But Fincher has often worked with material that would have been done anyway. But if he is an author I assume that these films would have then become very different.

But Tarantino is at least more original than Fincher, still both have made some of the best films of the last 20 years.


(John Welles) #1057

[quote=“Stanton, post:1056, topic:2027”]Such terms are always open for interpretation, as is the general question who is the author of a film.

And writing credits often enough don’t mean much.

But Fincher has often worked with material that would have been done anyway. But if he is an author I assume that these films would have then become very different.

But Tarantino is at least more original than Fincher, still both have made some of the best films of the last 20 years.[/quote]
I think we’re actually agreeing with each other here Stanton: many (most?) of Fincher’s films would’ve been made with or without him, from Alien[sup]3[/sup] to Gone Girl, perhaps even with the same screenplays, but it is Fincher’s way of telling the story that makes his pictures a significant cut above the rest. Tarantino, who emerged round a similar time, is more original in that he made kinds of movies not seen in American cinema before; I have a feeling he’d probably like Fight Club best of Fincher’s works, but as to who is the better director, it’s a tough call. Tarantino, by a hair, but Fincher is more consistent in terms of quality and isn’t prone to indulgence and/or excess.


(Stanton) #1058

I think QT is more consistent, even if Django Unchained was a bit less good than usual.


(Filmlovr1) #1059

Interstellar (2014)

I pretty much enjoyed this film…I’ve long been fascinated by the concept of ‘wormholes’, time warps, and other dimensions. Good acting performances by all. About the only thing I didn’t like were the shots that showed the constant spinning of the ship, where you could see the distant earth outside the windows. The concepts were great, but IMO not Christopher Nolan’s best work. Also, Matthew McConaughey’s has a tendency in this film to mumble his lines, at times almost incoherently.


(titoli) #1060

I too have just seen Interstellar (2015) in the cinema. Christoper Nolan has became new Steven Spielberg. His movies are epic and stunning, but they are also plagued with cheesy Hollywood-style sentimentality. This movie switches gear several times. First part is more philosophical and ideological, then we get some proper SF action, and in the end it all becomes very light. Nice pastime, but in the end closer to Armageddon than to 2001.