i agree. it's one of those Buffalo 66 or Taxi Driver situation movies. the outcast hero im cool in some jacket bullshit that's been played to death. it was alright i guess. i loved the soundtrack at the time. now maybe not so much.

you always find something political in something don't you? you should start yr on lib conspiracy podcast a la Alex Jones style. have yrself a board with complete with magik markers like Glenn Beck ready to connect the dots.

haven't seen Neon Demon yet, but even from a poster I can see it must be packed symbolism compared to Drive, probably much darker (story wise) too.

there's always something political/ideological in everything because we live in a political/ideological world. even when someone says "there's no politics there"--that's a political statement, meaning, "shut up and take it". politics is not the ONLY thing, but it's always there, like shit on your shorts. yes, some times you want to ignore it because it gets tiring-- other times you just can't. especially when beethoven is used for the baddies and bad christmas music represents the goodies, over & over, you notice. "it's good to be dumb".

Unrealistic doesn't seem like a legitimate qualm to have with a movie that so openly pulls its inspiration from arthouse, film noir and surrealism. I mean, you're right that it's not an exercise in realism. It doesn't play out like it's happening in front of you, or even like something you'd read about in the news. But part of the point of the film's aesthetic is to give you a singular perspective (Driver's) and his perspective is very obviously warped by arrested development, Hollywood livin', and a social isolation.

It's a movie that lingers on Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan looking at each other silently for, like, 3 minutes. Microexoressions offering the only change of scenery during that period. It's also about a guy (no name, no past, no future) who successfully and single-handedly takes down a formidable LA mob faction. I really don't think it's supposed to be realistic.

Honestly, the Dark Knight movies are more realistic than Drve, and they're about a guy who dresses up like a bat and fights crime. So I wouldn't maybe evaluate it based on realism. But what do I know.

I've heard it's a borderline horror film. With some vampiric cannibal bullshit or something. Yikes. Sounds a bit like Black Swan.

Winding Refn has a great talent for filmmaking, but I think Drive has been his only real home run so far. For all the silence and tension, there was enough catharsis and release; for all the alienated, singular perspective there was plenty of emotion. It worked. Only God Forgives was just plain painful, though still good enough. I don't know if I have it in me for another glacial pace tension movie, this time without Gosling and (ugh) about the fashion industry. Someone tell me if it's worth my time.

my main objections to Drive were the unrealistic portrayals of most of the characters, both major and minor. It works as a fantasy, I guess, but it was so close to being sorta real that it jarred badly for me. I have a fairly intimate and wide knowledge of those types, so it just didn't work... it reminded me of a sort of Fellini-esque look at those lives, like as if it were viewed by a catholic schoolboy, idealized? And, most of the people occupying those realms are just banally evil.

I have all the OA's and intend to watch them soon. Sounds like they are a recco from you?

yeah, it's totally a fantasy, and it's a nice and glossy and very aesthetic fantasy

this isn't cinema vérité for sure

it's more about... mood and color and slowed-down visuals and great light

the fairytale at the core of it is pretty standard

so it doesnt blow your mind, but rather your senses; and in that way it does blow your mind in the end-- but via the senses. kinda like a ralph lauren magazine ad ha ha ha. "otherwordly". you know what i mean? im asking cuz im not sure im being clear here--im not findimg the right words

its sort of psychedelic in a way. in a non-hippy way. its like melville's le samourai-- a dream.

Well, we're on episode 3 right now.

So far, I give it a resounding YES as a recommendation. But know that I'm still just getting started really.

When I say "Gaimanesque," I really mean it. Are you into Neil Gaiman? If not, what I mean is that it's a modern dark "fantasy" with connections to specific world cultures and their mythologies and fairy tales. It's a bit slow, but sweeping and cinematic. Might be a little rough to get through the early bits, but I'd say wait until the end of episode one before you make a decision.

Just so you know, it gets dark fairly suddenly, in a specific way that I find particularly disturbing. I won't spoil it -- I think the sensitivity to this kind of subject matter is a personal thing for me, so it may not be unsettling to anyone else, but it's VERY jarring for me so I feel I have to mention it.

But yeah man, do it.

Ooookaaay... so... The OA... thinking about rescinding my recommendation.

Girlfriend and I just spent the day binging on the whole bloody thing. She was crocheting, I was absent-mindedly working on a story, so it didn't get 100% of our attention, but after an engrossing first several episodes things got super weird in a way I can't in good conscience throw my support behind. It plays out like a movie. Leaves you with an extremely open-ended idea of what is/isn't happening.

I don't know man. I'd be interested to hear what other people thought of it. But fair warning: it contains interpretive dancing, and the cool Gaiman vibe about halfway through.

Not sure what to think, but definitely not a big fat thumbs up.

Krampus

It was going cheap in the supermarket so I let curiosity get the better of me ...

It's not terrible, even though it obviously can't decide what kind of movie it wants to be. So it comes over as a bit of a mess, trying to shoe-horn Gremlins, Home Alone and Poltergeist into the same box. But the Krampus itself was pretty cool. Just a shame he wasn't in it more.

^^ yeah, the krampus itself was a bit dr seuss-like i thought. and a great show of effects in itself. but the movie pastiche didn't transcend it's pasticheness.

btw last nite watched SOAPDISH



it was fucking hilarious. great cast too. really enjoyed it.

i'm suprised that i had never seen or heard of it till recently (and i think i was demonyo that recommended it)

^^ This.

It was good. A good, well made thriller with some crazy shit too. Nice cinematic nods to Hitchcock. Not a masterpiece at all, but a pretty good way to spend an evening. An above-average thriller for sure. Recommend.

(Yeah, we're just straight up binging today. Got fuckall else to do, and we're certainly not going anywhere near a ball drop.)

Yeah, the movie was shit but Krampus was cool. Should have been R-rated with no henchmen and only Krampus jumping around like yeti Santa.

Again, I submit to you this pic from the movie (which convinced me to watch in the first place);



^^ Is that not fucking COOL as hell?!

I agree. I liked it without thinking it was any kind of masterpiece. It'll be interesting to see if they turn the whole Cloverfield thing into a loose mythos. I hope they do.


In the right hands it could've been pretty good. Spielberg would've made the family tensions more fun than irritating/cliched, while someone like Tim Burton could've done something far more interesting with the Krampus myth.

And yeah, that pic suggests a far better film than we actually got.

Also watched ...



Vamps

I really liked it even though nothing about it is actually that good. In fact it's pretty terrible, but really really enjoyable.

Inside Llewyn Davis.

6.5/10

Found it a bit boring and disappointing.

my last movie of 2016



criterion just put out a new blu-ray release, and it's fucking glorious. what is it about fellini that has such potent magic?

reminded me at the same time of amarcord and satyricon, but it was something completely different-- documentary, satire, memoir, political commentary, all at the same time. spectacular visuals of course.

brilliant features on the disc as well (interview w/ the guy who did the great beauty, etc)

^ it's one of those slow, melancholy Coen movies, like Serious Man. I think its a pretty good one. I think it's a pretty good look at the early 60's before psychedelics and Vietnam, I also thought Oscar Issac was really good in it.

It is quite divisive. The first half of the film is so utterly weird- full of exquisitely framed images, harsh lighting (with strobe effects) and to top it off, every word from every actress is mumbled in this half-druggy state of awareness. It's hard to make sense of it and then, yes, it does turn into a bit of a horror film whose second half doesn't quite live up to the first. You have to give Refn credit for trying something bold, though. He seems to be one of the few out there given green lights for stuff and then experimenting heavily to see how far he can push it.