many motion pictures are made for the big screen
and watching them on smaller screen does the film-maker and viewer a huge disservice
I do believe the experience of watching Dancer in the Dark, to be much more enjoyable, the visuals, cinematography was superb on the big screen, the sound was quite impressive, too.
I am not chastising people that can not make it to a theater, I am just encouraging them to make the effort, if they can. Avatar, on TV looks like a cartoon.
I did enjoy it a lot on the big screen, both in 3d and 2d.
So, if any of you think you want to see Melancholia, and you can make it to a screening, do it.
But I recently bought Avatar on Blu-ray, and because I have a projector, was still able to be somewhat engulfed by the image for it to work.
While you're not going to get the perfect sharpness as on an LCD or Plasma screen, for me it's much better to replicate the theatrical experience as much as possible.
And, you know, a projector is a lot cheaper than a gigantic television.
I was going to post something about home theaters, (but, I'm lazy)
I am about to go to 55 or 60 inch LED, I'll probably spend the extra $$ and get the 240 mhz.
Best Buy has the 55 inch Samsung down to about $1800-$1900.
that will be a lot different from my 32 inch, 10 year old television.
Isn't it amazing how Marion Cotillard manages to do so much with very small roles? In addition to Midnight in Paris, her appearances in Public Enemies and Inception? The woman has a rare talent to create a distinct emotional impression regardless of her screen time. I'd make an exception there with Contagion, but her part was drastically cut in editing.
I think despite the paring down, she does a whole lot with what she's given in Contagion, she doesn't even have a lot of dialog with the language barrier in her scenes but you feel every bit of the harrowing journey she goes on because of her facial expression and body language, the more important aspects of acting to me.
It's slight given everything that goes on in the movie, but she's charming as hell in Big Fish, the first thing I saw her in.
But I wouldn't call her parts in Public Enemies or Inception small at all. Also, much as I'm a fan of her and the film, I didn't love her performance in Inception, but this was probably more a product of Nolan's writing than anything else, I know we don't get a full view of the character because all we see is the idealized version, the personification of Cobb's grief and the demonic self-flagellation version that comes out of that so we don't know much about her at all. Actually, now that I think about it, it is quite a versatile performance.
I realized I never really reviewed the film on here aside from a quick mention. It's certainly right up there with the films of his I most admire for their structural and aesthetic ingenuity - The Girlfriend Experience, Out of Sight, The Informant!, The Limey, etc being some of my favorites. I think Contagion might succeed best as his most focused thesis for cinema to express the complex relationships between people, spaces and narratives. It has a very succinct idea at its core, demonstrating the spread and eventual containment of information in a distinctly digital age as analogous to that of a virus, and the film's form it given a wonderful exactly richness by that. I think it's easily his more aesthetically stimulating film - those long montages with that great score are only the first of its pleasures.
This is seriously not a movie to watch if you're pregnant or thinking of starting a family. It reminded me a lot of Doris Lessing's The Fifth Child, with the common theme of women who, from the very start, cannot love or connect with their child and the whole ancient, primal fear of being a mother who gives birth to a monster. Kevin is a screaming baby, a creepy sulky child, and a sinister sociopathic teenager; the story is told in a non-linear fashion and you know from the start that he commits something terrible, but when it's revealed fully it was actually so much worse than what I'd steeled myself for and I still feel shocked. Tilda Swinton is again absolutely superb and boys who play Kevin do an unnervingly great job as well, and though the film is disturbing and hard to watch at times it's also visceral and hypnotic.
This is seriously not a movie to watch if you're pregnant or thinking of starting a family. It reminded me a lot of Doris Lessing's The Fifth Child, with the common theme of women who, from the very start, cannot love or connect with their child and the whole ancient, primal fear of being a mother who gives birth to a monster. Kevin is a screaming baby, a creepy sulky child, and a sinister sociopathic teenager; the story is told in a non-linear fashion and you know from the start that he commits something terrible, but when it's revealed fully it was actually so much worse than what I'd steeled myself for and I still feel shocked. Tilda Swinton is again absolutely superb and boys who play Kevin do an unnervingly great job as well, and though the film is disturbing and hard to watch at times it's also visceral and hypnotic.
Yeah, Tilda looks excellent in the trailer, but that kid, Ezra Miller? Creepy as hell just to look at, if they wanted it to be harder for her claims that he's evil to be taken seriously they should have cast a normal looking kid.
I think a lot of people saying that don't even have kids. I've read stories from a number of people who have actually seen the film with children and most appear to love it.
.... they did the Muppet Show intro at the start of the telethon.
.... they sang Rainbow Connection
.... they went outside and saw all the people who came because they love the Muppets.
Then again, I also almost started crying during the preview for that movie about how Drew Barrymore and John Krasinski try and get a bunch of whales freed from some ice in Alaska.
.... they did the Muppet Show intro at the start of the telethon.
.... they sang Rainbow Connection
.... they went outside and saw all the people who came because they love the Muppets.
Then again, I also almost started crying during the preview for that movie about how Drew Barrymore and John Krasinski try and get a bunch of whales freed from some ice in Alaska.
I will admit that I got a little choked up too (and during that song in Kermits mansion near the beginning), but I'm a nostalgic softy.
Rainbow Connection has been in my head all day.
I think it might've been the most fun I've had at the movies this year though
Hugo is maybe the first film I've seen that I probably wouldn't have enjoyed as much without the 3D. Easily the best use of it I've seen yet, and the whole film has a superb visual design. So lovely. Other than that, all the stuff with Melies was great - everything else, I understand its purpose, it's well orchestrated and works on a narrative level, but eh. I wasn't too enthralled outside of the spectacle. Hugo himself is a bit of a little shit, and I wanted him to be sent to an orphanage or fall to his death from the clock tower. But seriously, the best surprise of the film for me was
actually seeing some of Melies' work, not only in great quality on the big screen, but surprisingly even itself converted to 3D in a few instances. And it looked wonderful.
Since I'm talking about 3D, there were a few quite impressive trailers in front of this. I have to say the new Titanic trailer kind of blew me away. For a conversion, it looked just as impressive as anything I've seen shot natively in the format. The Phantom Menace was a bit harder to just because of the content of the teaser, but I feel like it's going to be a lot of fun to revisit like this. And Tintin simply continues to look spectacular.
You got a Phantom Menace trailer? FUCK! We got the Titanic one, but it wasn't even in 3D.
I liked Hugo more than you did, but the notion that it's his best in ages is ludicrous. I was more impressed with the direction in Gangs, Shutter Island, even The Avaiator. Having said that, his visual approach w/r/t the use of 3D was indeed very refreshing.
I will say, seeing those clips of TPM on the big screen again, the effects work and CGI are really showing their age, which I think has been discussed recently with regards to Star Wars on the whole, but it was certainly a bit surprising, exacerbated a bit perhaps by the 3D effects. I'm getting pretty thrilled by the prospect of Episodes 2 and 3 with a solid conversion though.
Also, I think I saw recently that Cameron isn't just spending untold amounts of money on Titanic's conversion, but also remastering it from the ground up more or less, and I'm willing to bet cleaning up a number of the bigger effects shots in the film. Seeing some of the particular images in the trailer on the big screen was a pretty big jolt, and looked a hell of a lot better than I ever remember the film looking, including the amazing 3D work.
Hugo is maybe the first film I've seen that I probably wouldn't have enjoyed as much without the 3D. Easily the best use of it I've seen yet, and the whole film has a superb visual design. So lovely. Other than that, all the stuff with Melies was great - everything else, I understand its purpose, it's well orchestrated and works on a narrative level, but eh. I wasn't too enthralled outside of the spectacle. Hugo himself is a bit of a little shit, and I wanted him to be sent to an orphanage or fall to his death from the clock tower. But seriously, the best surprise of the film for me was
actually seeing some of Melies' work, not only in great quality on the big screen, but surprisingly even itself converted to 3D in a few instances. And it looked wonderful.
Since I'm talking about 3D, there were a few quite impressive trailers in front of this. I have to say the new Titanic trailer kind of blew me away. For a conversion, it looked just as impressive as anything I've seen shot natively in the format. The Phantom Menace was a bit harder to just because of the content of the teaser, but I feel like it's going to be a lot of fun to revisit like this. And Tintin simply continues to look spectacular.
I saw Hugo in 2D, perhaps I should have went for the 3D, I did give it some thought.
Lance. I have to tell you lately I have been agreeing with your opinions, everything on Hugo, I agree. I wish the story was strong enough to have me sit through a 3D, but the best parts are in 2D and hand color tinted. Also, I was happy to you see step back a bit on Tree of Life. I wanted to like it more, much of it is great, but it will never be more than a flawed masterpiece. I am going back for a second theater viewing of Melancholia, there is nothing wrong with this film.
Last night I sat through a second viewing of Almodovar's The Skin I Live In , an absolutely beautiful, somewhat horrific film. This film looks fantastic on the big screen. Have you seen it?
I got a pretty big kick out of The Skin I Live In. Icy cool detachment mixed with his signature high-camp aesthetic branding. Good stuff.
I do have my reservations about The Tree of Life, but they basically amount to it not being the greatest film ever made, and probably not even my favorite Malick film. The most "significant" film of the year though surely, and maybe my favorite when all is said and done, which is something I tend to go back and forth on for quite a while until I end up putting enough distance between myself and any given year's offerings. So we'll see.
For the record, the major films I'm still eager to see from the vague bounds of "this year" - The Deep Blue Sea, We Need to Talk About Kevin, A Dangerous Method, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Tintin, Mission Impossible: GP, House of Tolerance, The Turin Horse, Once Upon A Time in Anatolia, Le Havre
I do have my reservations about The Tree of Life, but they basically amount to it not being the greatest film ever made, and probably not even my favorite Malick film.
