or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Rate The Last Movie You Watched
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rate The Last Movie You Watched - Page 980

post #14686 of 19957

We seem to differ, at a fundamental level, in the way how we perceive or choose to perceive movies and in the way how we use words to describe them.

So we will never agree on any of what you just said.

Both movies are very different and, although I understand your judgements of The Ascent, I would never make similar conjectures towards any of them.

Not because I can't. I choose not to when a movie doesn't force me to do it.

Neither movie came across to me as particularly declarative and both have some degree of latitude for interpretation, specially ZDT, even accounting the historical inaccuracies.

I could just as easilly define ZDT with the inverse judgement, Maya being the foolish and in the end humiliated character, because she invests so much of her energy and time into the destruction of one man, that ultimatelly she ends with the only thing that gave any purpose or meaning to her life.

She suddenly finds herself without place or purpose in the world and she is devastated, this is the culmination of the movie. (sorry for spoiler)

What drove her to invest so much into it? Why did she care so much? Why?

These are the sort of questions that this movie raises in my head and doesn't apply necessarilly only to the main character, it eventually leads to a more philosophical debate that goes beyond the subject of the work.

And yet I choose not to define and limit the movie to such single judgement because there's more to it than this.

If I had to, I'd prefer to say that the director intent is to raise philosophical questions/debate rather than say that she wanted to declare this or that.

Things are not so black and white, both movies have a rather suggestive and even ambiguous nature to me.

 

Different perspectives, nothing to be done.

 

I've heard about Come and See, I might try to find it and see it.

Thx for suggestions.


Edited by kkl10 - 1/5/14 at 8:09am
post #14687 of 19957
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkl10 View Post
 

 

Neither movie came across to me as particularly declarative and both have some degree of latitude for interpretation, specially ZDT, even accounting the historical inaccuracies.

 

If I had to, I'd prefer to say that the director intent is to raise philosophical questions/debate rather than say that she wanted to declare this or that.

Things are not so black and white, both movies have a rather suggestive and even ambiguous nature to me.

 

I'm afraid that you are definitely wrong at least about The Ascent. Why? Because Larisa Shepitko directly explained to her assistant what this film was about. Here is an extract from her assistant's memoirs:

 

Assistant: " It seems that there is nothing prohibitive in "Sotnikov" ( a book on which The Ascent was based) to scare our authorities ."

 

Then Larissa exploded : "If you think so, you do not understand what this picture is about"

 

Assistant: Could you explain me because there is nothing in "Sotnikov" that could alert our bosses?

 

Larisa thought for a while, then said solemnly : "This movie ... have you read the Bible?"

 

Assistant: "Bible? ( I was surprised) What Bible has to do with the book?"

 

Shepitko: " Here's a job - read the Bible and try to understand that the core of a human personality is spirituality. It is this - basic - human core that we will explore in our heroes. Herd morality of our time in a country where God was refused is superficial and we need to understand that through the character of Rybak ( a betrayer). Sotnikov ( a protagonist) is another matter, he is moral as God planned . There is the eternal problem of Pontius Pilate, there are other perennial problems. And all of them during all times get repeated ... repeated in a new guise, but the essence is the same. The problem Sotnikov - Rybak is eternal problem which determines our quality level ... And this problem is the problem of Christ and Judas ... Is it clear now what the Bible has to do with our project? "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The majority of critics and reviewers noticed in the film parallels to Bible and symbolic language which means that the movie was definitely declarative and NOT suggestive. There was a strong ideological message in it with ambitions to influence Soviet people. You didn't get that message though the movie still worked for you. 

 

I understood what Shepitko wanted to portray but I didn't agree with her interpretation ( I expressed my judgements based on correct understanding of intentions of the director). Our goal is to understand the director's message as correctly as possible and only then we can agree or disagree with it. Or if there is no particular deep message ( purely entertaining cinema) then we should judge aesthetic qualities of a movie, does it satisfy our tastes or not.

post #14688 of 19957

Yep, seems about right.

Can't argue against the director own idea.

post #14689 of 19957
On a lighter note...

I saw Anchorman 2 today. I think I'm getting too old for these types of movies. I found myself looking for things to laugh at. And, as usual, if you have seen the trailers and ads, you have heard EVERY funny line in the movie. IMHO, Steve Carell is much funnier than Will Farrell.

2.5 stars out of 5.
post #14690 of 19957
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post

On a lighter note...

I saw Anchorman 2 today. I think I'm getting too old for these types of movies. I found myself looking for things to laugh at. And, as usual, if you have seen the trailers and ads, you have heard EVERY funny line in the movie. IMHO, Steve Carell is much funnier than Will Farrell.

2.5 stars out of 5.

 

I am continually amazed that so many people think Will Farrell is so funny....just like Dane Cook. I don't find either one of them very funny.

post #14691 of 19957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post

I am continually amazed that so many people think Will Farrell is so funny....just like Dane Cook. I don't find either one of them very funny.

Haha, Dane Cook I could do without.

Will Farrell needs to be cast juuuust right, almost written for.
post #14692 of 19957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post
 

 

I am continually amazed that so many people think Will Farrell is so funny....just like Dane Cook. I don't find either one of them very funny.

 

+1 here, I'd rather watch something with Jim Carrey in it over and over again rather than watching a Will Farrell movie..

post #14693 of 19957
^^ Mutabor,
Interesting discussion.

I think there's a case for both ways of viewing movies.
One is like Opera, where the audience is expected to do some homework before attending the performance itself. It gives a deeper meaning to the act , since each director's approach differs.

The other is more spontaneous. The movie evokes emotions as you watch it.

I'd say both approaches are valid, depending on the viewer's personality.
Edited by proton007 - 1/6/14 at 4:06am
post #14694 of 19957
There's also the viewpoint that once a piece of art is released, it "belongs" to the public and any person is free to give it any interpretation that they want. I assume that none would be wrong because they are reflective of the person themselves and their experiences rather than any intent that may or may not have been packaged with the art that would almost literally have been stripped away upon it's release to a viewer.
post #14695 of 19957
Blade Runner 1080p Blu ray
Prometheus 1080p Blu ray


Never seen these in hi-def before.

Blade Runner gets a 10 out of 10. Probably seen it 50 or 60 times. Never like this though.

Prometheus gets an 8.5 out of 10. Great on so many levels as well as stupid on so many.
post #14696 of 19957

Really not sure what to think of this one...the film itself was very well done, but on the other hand it appears to represent such an enormous cluster-F that it really makes it hard to know what you really think in the end. I'll pass on offering anything along the lines of a review or a rating...

 

 

post #14697 of 19957
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post


I think there's a case foe both ways of viewing movies.
One is like Opera, where the audience is expected to do some homework battending the performance itself. It gives a deeper meaning to the act itself, since each director's approach differs.

The other is more spontaneous. The movie evokes emotions as you watch it.

I'd say both approaches are valid, depending on the viewer's personality.

 

I think that our approaches ( kkl10 and mine) are not that different. I'm just more knowledgeable in relation to The Ascent because I know the mentality of the director, I know which themes to expect from a Soviet director, I'm more prepared. It was time when I thought that art-house or indie was boring, that cinema is not capable to be meaningful, that the main purpose of cinema is to entertain people.

 

But recently I discovered some directors which proved that you can project your philosophical worldview using visual language. So far I thought that visual language of cinema is basically superficial, capable only to work on emotional level. I thought that only books can reach your consciousness and influence your thinking. I discovered Loznitsa who I found much in common in how we perceive the world, then I watched the whole discography of Tarkovsky in 10 days. The main thing about Tarkovsky is that he doesn't want to entertain viewers at all. He is a religious philosopher who had chosen cinematic language to express himself.

 

So before watching a movie we have to evaluate which kind is it? Is it a movie which demands thinking or is it a movie to relax? The same is about literature. You just can't pick Dostoevsky's novel and ignore philosophical part of it. If you read his "Crime and Punishment" and perceived it as a merely suspense detective story then you are not mature or prepared enough to grasp the novel's intentions. You have to accept that some movies and books are like opera where you are expected to be prepared.


Edited by mutabor - 1/6/14 at 3:50am
post #14698 of 19957
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post
 

 

I think that our approaches ( kkl10 and mine) are not that different. I'm just more knowledgeable in relation to The Ascent because I know the mentality of the director, I know which themes to expect from a Soviet director, I'm more prepared. It was time when I thought that art-house or indie was boring, that cinema is not capable to be meaningful, that the main purpose of cinema is to entertain people.

 

But recently I discovered some directors which proved that you can project your philosophical worldview using visual language. So far I thought that visual language of cinema is basically superficial, capable only to work on emotional level. I thought that only books can reach your consciousness and influence your thinking. I discovered Loznitsa who I found much in common in how we perceive the world, then I watched the whole discography of Tarkovsky in 10 days. The main thing about Tarkovsky is that he doesn't want to entertain viewers at all. He is a religious philosopher who had chosen cinematic language to express himself.

 

So before watching a movie we have to evaluate which kind is it? Is it a movie which demands thinking or is it a movie to relax? The same is about literature. You just can't pick Dostoevsky's novel and ignore philosophical part of it. If you read his "Crime and Punishment" and perceived it as a merely suspense detective story then you are not mature or prepared enough to grasp the novel's intentions. You have to accept that some movies and books are like opera where you are expected to be prepared.

 

I agree with you, but as you say, evaluating a movie/novel on a thinking/philosophical level means we need to have a pre-existing ability to evaluate (mostly by reading about these concepts and ideas). Not everyone is willing to do that (Infact, most don't).

 

From the producer/director's perspective, its a dilemma. Dumb things down too much and the audience feels patronized, make things too complex or philosophical and they'll feel alienated.


Edited by proton007 - 1/6/14 at 4:16am
post #14699 of 19957

The Hunt (Jagten) - 9,5

 

Very Good.

Disturbing and convincing movie that shows how an innocent miscommunication or lie from a child can absolutelly destroy another persons life.

It displays the ambiguity of human relations and the fragility of the foundations of a social construct where, no matter what happens, our past always hunts us.

This movie compels us to reflection and does it well!

All thanks to the excelent acting and directing.

Thomas Vinterberg didn't forge this work strictly through the formal rules of "Dogma 95", but the film still manages to fulfill extremelly well the primary premisse behind the manifesto:

to make itself worth only by the acting and storytelling merits while saving on techological resources and production artificialisms, all this to bring the viewer closer to the core of the movie. It worked with me for sure.

This picture has a realistic and fleshed out style and powerfull impact thanks to intelligent directing, minimalism of resources and almost immaculate acting.

Very touching to observe the unfair suffering of the main character.

Praise must be given to the little girl who played apparently disturbed Klara, very convincing!, great acting skills from such a young child!

Great film!


Edited by kkl10 - 1/6/14 at 1:14pm
post #14700 of 19957
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post

^^ Mutabor,
Interesting discussion.

I think there's a case for both ways of viewing movies.
One is like Opera, where the audience is expected to do some homework before attending the performance itself. It gives a deeper meaning to the act , since each director's approach differs.

The other is more spontaneous. The movie evokes emotions as you watch it.

I'd say both approaches are valid, depending on the viewer's personality.

 

I understand that you are just replying to a particular subject raised in mutabor post, I just want to clarify that the discussion I was having with mutabor wasn't about this nor were we camping on either side of both of these views at all.

I made an incorrect assumption that our views were extremelly different although not in this way, but then mutabor clearly showed that he was right with his analysis of The Ascent for which I clearly didn't have the same preparation.

I concur that our views may not be that different.


Edited by kkl10 - 1/6/14 at 1:08pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Rate The Last Movie You Watched