Jay wrote:
Have to remember its a Baz Luhrman movie so it's not for people like [ ].
i like 'arty' films. i like films done with themes and elaborate styles. but lurhmann is all style, no substance. he sucked the marrow out of a perfectly good tale and re-presented it as the emptiest, most salutory celebrity guff i have ever seen. he is not a good director. he makes 'arty' films for hollywood cattle who don't know what 'arthouse' cinema is. people feel urbane watching his movies because he's a little weird, considering the hollywood norm. however, nine times out of ten his films are also a little crap.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-21 13:14:48)
I saw this article a few days ago written in a similar vein. A lot of people I know excited about it are ones who were required to read it in high school, probably didn't actually do so, and are just excited to look at Leo in old-timey clothes. It's this sort of person who I'm reminded of whenever I hear of someone throwing a "1920s party", which is apparently a thing.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
great gatsby was really shit. and i don't care about 'faithful' novel adaptations or w/e. i could take his zany romeo & juliet remaking - it captured the histrionics and classical pageantry of shakespeare perfectly well, even with his "WTF" idiosyncrasies layered over the top (incidentally you get a pretty good idea what a director thinks of himself when he drastically alters shakespeare and fitzgerald...) but the WHOLE POINT of the great gatsby was the nuance and subtle psychodrama going on beneath his surface: gatsby gently ironizes the 'american dream' and tells a beautiful/damned story of aspiration and success. the latest movie had none of that. it was a crass celebration of partying and luhrmann's art department. it drained all of the complexity and nuance out of the book's tale, the ambiguities hidden in gatsby's (and fitzgerald's) lives and their surface appearances of success and fame... and just replaced it with an hour and a half of the most vacuous, dumb, meaningless spectacle imaginable. again: he made lots of stylistic changes with romeo & juliet, it was just as bombastic and over-the-top... but it retained the essence of the original. this remake is just stupid. you don't leave with the core 'message' or feel the 'stimmung' of the story at all. it's bawdy and shallow.
the choice of sound-track is a massive disaster and vanity project/ego-trip by jay-z that is so egregious it deserves a thread all unto itself, tbh. every single song on it is an absolute stinker, so ill-conceived, poorly advised, and terribly executed.
also lol'ing at the conversation about aussie/nz cinema above. the world doesn't give a fuck about aussie/nz cinema. 'film' as an institution still has its heart in europe.
Iron Man 3
8/10
8/10
The argument he made for the soundtrack was that he wanted the movie's soundtrack to create the same emotional response (???) to our generation as jazz was to Scott's. He felt that having jazz in the movie would make it seem like a distant period piece. I can dig that argument but am a little skeptical of the Jay Z choice. It was also a bit strange watching everyone rock out to Flux Pavilion after popping a molly.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
great gatsby was really shit. and i don't care about 'faithful' novel adaptations or w/e. i could take his zany romeo & juliet remaking - it captured the histrionics and classical pageantry of shakespeare perfectly well, even with his "WTF" idiosyncrasies layered over the top (incidentally you get a pretty good idea what a director thinks of himself when he drastically alters shakespeare and fitzgerald...) but the WHOLE POINT of the great gatsby was the nuance and subtle psychodrama going on beneath his surface: gatsby gently ironizes the 'american dream' and tells a beautiful/damned story of aspiration and success. the latest movie had none of that. it was a crass celebration of partying and luhrmann's art department. it drained all of the complexity and nuance out of the book's tale, the ambiguities hidden in gatsby's (and fitzgerald's) lives and their surface appearances of success and fame... and just replaced it with an hour and a half of the most vacuous, dumb, meaningless spectacle imaginable. again: he made lots of stylistic changes with romeo & juliet, it was just as bombastic and over-the-top... but it retained the essence of the original. this remake is just stupid. you don't leave with the core 'message' or feel the 'stimmung' of the story at all. it's bawdy and shallow.
the choice of sound-track is a massive disaster and vanity project/ego-trip by jay-z that is so egregious it deserves a thread all unto itself, tbh. every single song on it is an absolute stinker, so ill-conceived, poorly advised, and terribly executed.
also lol'ing at the conversation about aussie/nz cinema above. the world doesn't give a fuck about aussie/nz cinema. 'film' as an institution still has its heart in europe.
people have the same response to jay-z or florence as the machine as 1920's swingers did to swing/jazz? i don't think so. it just doesn't work.
and yeah, okay, it "didn't make it seem like a period piece". instead it has achieved the exact opposite: it seems like an ephemeral, transient piece of crap. lana del ray and flux pavilion/nero? that sums up our period, now? give me a break. in 10 years time nobody will remember these artists or their music. this film will be on the scrapheap by then. total shit.
and yeah, okay, it "didn't make it seem like a period piece". instead it has achieved the exact opposite: it seems like an ephemeral, transient piece of crap. lana del ray and flux pavilion/nero? that sums up our period, now? give me a break. in 10 years time nobody will remember these artists or their music. this film will be on the scrapheap by then. total shit.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-21 15:44:17)
well I'm most looking forward to the 6th fast and furious movie this summer.
stop trolling mac.
I'm not. I really like the series.
but it's complete trash. the first 2 are bearable with a fairly large intake of THC to the lungs, just about. you can't complain about a sequel to 300 and then say you can't wait for the 6th fast and furious. they're being made for the same reasons, the almighty dollar.
But the Fast and Furious didn't set off a bunch of silly internet memes based off of some homoerotic fascination with buff men. They aren't art movies but they are fun and I care about what happens to Dom and his family.
i thought that scene where vin diesel and the rock were having some hard man-squaring up-face off to be just as homo erotic as chiseled abs. I audibly sighed at that. don't get me started on the bank vault scene either, there isn't time. i want to go to bed.
I've read in a number of reviews that Jay Gatsby was the most boring part of the film.DesertFox- wrote:
I saw this article a few days ago written in a similar vein. A lot of people I know excited about it are ones who were required to read it in high school, probably didn't actually do so, and are just excited to look at Leo in old-timey clothes. It's this sort of person who I'm reminded of whenever I hear of someone throwing a "1920s party", which is apparently a thing.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
[...]
star wars 2. dated cgi. bad script.
star wars 3. somewhat better script but still plenty of dumb scenes
star wars 4. weird
star wars 3. somewhat better script but still plenty of dumb scenes
star wars 4. weird
???
The empire strikes back is the best in the series. Return of the Jedi was good up until the Ewoks.
The empire strikes back is the best in the series. Return of the Jedi was good up until the Ewoks.
Imagine if, instead of Ewoks, the planet was full of Wookiees.
8ft tall rip your arms out of the socket Wookiees that don't fuck around.
8ft tall rip your arms out of the socket Wookiees that don't fuck around.
The fuck is 2 3 and 4? You watched them in the order of 2002-2005-1977??????RTHKI wrote:
star wars 2. dated cgi. bad script.
star wars 3. somewhat better script but still plenty of dumb scenes
star wars 4. weird
Just watched this for the second or third time.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i like 'arty' films. i like films done with themes and elaborate styles. but lurhmann is all style, no substance. he sucked the marrow out of a perfectly good tale and re-presented it as the emptiest, most salutory celebrity guff i have ever seen. he is not a good director. he makes 'arty' films for hollywood cattle who don't know what 'arthouse' cinema is. people feel urbane watching his movies because he's a little weird, considering the hollywood norm. however, nine times out of ten his films are also a little crap.
Its a very artsy version of Orson Welles. I like Orson Welles.
James Bond and Harry Potter?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
you can call film "garbage" all you want, we have a great film industry (many are state-subsidized and experimental, all the better for it), whilst you have stinkers like luhrmann's australia. enjoy, cretins. ha ha ha.
I only watch Bond for jingoistic reasons TBH.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Ewoks are obviously a sub-species of wookie.AussieReaper wrote:
Imagine if, instead of Ewoks, the planet was full of Wookiees.
8ft tall rip your arms out of the socket Wookiees that don't fuck around.
Its all there in the sub-text.
Fuck you're stupid.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-05-22 03:14:27)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
i don't think i could ever watch a kafka adaptation. besides, all his originals are like < 150 pages. you could read it in less than the time the actual fucking film takes. even translating kafka into english seems to be a major compromise. i don't know why you'd try and translate him into a different medium.Spearhead wrote:
Just watched this for the second or third time.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i like 'arty' films. i like films done with themes and elaborate styles. but lurhmann is all style, no substance. he sucked the marrow out of a perfectly good tale and re-presented it as the emptiest, most salutory celebrity guff i have ever seen. he is not a good director. he makes 'arty' films for hollywood cattle who don't know what 'arthouse' cinema is. people feel urbane watching his movies because he's a little weird, considering the hollywood norm. however, nine times out of ten his films are also a little crap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlKEybkVl0M
Its a very artsy version of Orson Welles. I like Orson Welles.
jack reacher 8/10 lots of injuries pertaining to the head in this movie hah- good chase stuff - story aiight, nice and confusing. tom cruise is very attractive still.
3 stooges-esque scene
3 stooges-esque scene
watching them in story order, skipped one cause i only have it on vhs and naboo was boring
You aren't supposed to watch them in story order. 4,5,6, and then 1,2,3. You ruin the surprises if you watch it in order