screencaps plz

Well I think it isn't.

I agree with H8kudrt. I certainly don't hate it but bits of it just make me cringe, like when David Hemmings gets Vanessa Redgrave stoned and plays her jazz. It's dated quite badly, I think.

It's obviously open to endless interpretation but the best or most convincing one that I've heard is that by picking up the invisible ball, he's finally succumbed to the absurdity of the era. Although he was arguably as much a part of it from the word go.

To be honest, the anti-Blow Up thing (if we can call it that) seems more a British thing, just as most people I've met who don't like Zabriskie Point (which I really like) are American. There's a sense that outside Italy, Antonioni was a bit too much of a tourist, not really getting the details right and a bit in awe of it all. I actually know a couple of people who had minor parts in Blow Up, mostly in the party scene, and they weren't that convinced that Antonioni really 'got' the world they represented at all. General consensus is that Performance was a far more accurate and insightful portrayal of the whole Swinging London thing. I'm too young to really comment but certainly Performance feels more in tune with that time than Blow Up does - perhaps because Donald Cammell, Jagger, Anita Pallenberg, etc were very much a part of that scene. And maybe Antonioni's style just wasn't really suited to the subject-matter. Given what he did in films like Roma, Satyricon and obviously La Dolce Vita, perhaps Fellini would've been a better choice to direct it.

mystery of chess boxing: 6/10
even dwarfs started small: 7/10
the lost patrol: 4/10
metallica: some kind of monster: 6/10

it IS fucking great. here what critix sei:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowup#Critical

yes. yes it is, in many ways.




so is everything that was ever written or made! from don quijote to daydream nation.

The Yardbirds scene in Blow-Up is a stand-out, in my opinion.

The object (a broken guitar neck) only has value when others want it. Once that's gone, not even the owner of the object gives a shit about it. At least that's how I interpret the scene. Not sure how it fits into the rest of the film, but speculate away please.

By the way, I can't resist being a jerk: I would've been one of those in the crowd at Cannes yelling "Cut!" during that awful cure-for-insomnia called L'Aventura.

haa haaa haaa

i finally liked l'avventura like the 3rd time i watched it

it creates its own world and sets of expectations, so it's very demanding on the viewer. once you allow it to dictate to you "how to watch a movie" it's quite enjoyable.

Dated has nothing to do with being of its age, which is inevitable, but being stuck in, and only relevant to it. Films like L'avventura, L'Eclisse, La Notte are clearly of their time but also manage to feel current in a way that I just don't think Blow Up does. It'll never be anything other than a 'sixties film', for me, which is something I'd never say about films Antonioni made earlier in that same decade.

And seriously, that you consider L'avventura 'quite enjoyable' while calling Blow Up 'great' is akin to preferring the wrong Ronaldo. I'm sorry, it just is.

Either way, just rewatched



Avengers Assemble

Brilliant. etc.

Honest human drama and concerns are never dated. That is why shakespeare, Cervantes, Melville, Etc are all still read and loved.

If by dated you mean OUTdated then yes, everything eventually becomes that, but dated in art really refers more to relevance, to the personal relevance of the struggle or the story or the humor in the work.

Sonic Youth will never seem dated in either way I think. They were never big enough to be assimilated into mainstream culture by the masses, and no other bands took the SY sonic approach and got super famous with it.

I think things get dated more when they are too specific of their time. However, once the memory of that time leaves the collective consciousness, then it can be rediscovered based on it's own values.

the same tyhing happend with Bach, sho was alomost willfuly ignored for several hundred years after his death, having been too big an influence on what came after. It took time for people to truly rediscover the magic Bach wrote.

Oh well then! If they say it's good then i'll have to agree. The critics make out North By Northwest was the best thing sonce sliced bread but I sure as hell aint gonna agree with them.

ANYWAY!


Re-watching this in a mo. I lent it to a guy at work. I knew he wouldn't like it but he hated it. His main reasons being 1)it didn't make sense and 2)nothing was explained at the end. Brilliant.

I tried to explain to him that films shouldn't have to have everything explained in a tidy box with a bow on it. They can leave things open and let the viewer think for themselves. He didn't buy it. He said that films have to have a story and then used a god awful metaphor "it's like having a novel and only having pictures" :rolleyes: <- my face right after that. That put the idea of me lending him Tarkovsky's film Mirror out! Oh and he said that nothing happened in the film. Fail.

I asked him what his fav film of all time was to which he said Shawshank Redemption. That said it all for me. Don't get me wrong it's a good film but is it THAT good? Non.

Yeah, I've never understood what it is about that film for it to be so many people's favourite.

Prometheus. Finally. And it was about 10 times better than I had expected. Why would anyone be disappointed by this movie?

As far as big budget blockbusters that take an obsurdly long time to make, it kicks Avatar's ass, and offers more proof that Ridley Scott is, always has been, and always will be better than Cameron.

Yes. Mulholland Drive. I may be over my Lynch phase at this point, but that movie will never leave me, even if I never see it again.

I've not seen "Prometheus", but I've just heard bad things about it, especially if you love "Alien".

I need your bloooood v""v

If you're the type of Alien fanboy who has three blurays of AVP and knows the scientific genus types of all the long headed things in Latin, then there will be some frustrating timeline issues (apparently). But, if you love the first movie, watch the second every few years and pretend all the others don't exist, then it's a ripping good flick with a great premise and visuals. There's a theological element to it that I found pretty goddamn cool. What if "God" is a crazy monster that wants to kill us? Made me think of Star Trek V.

This was cute and all, but a much better film could have been made of such a classic cult show.

I think that's exactly right - although I do like Alien 3 (a lot) and Alien 4 (a bit).

If you watch films to watch a story, which is most folks, then he is right. Maul holland falls is one big bag of meaningless bullshit about extremely unlike able people. Boring as FUCK. I hated it like I hate Thomas kinkade's rotting corpse.

That theater scene is easily one of my fav. scenes of all time. As much as I dislike the whole hoopla of the Oscar's Naomi Watts should've gotten one for that film.

ha ha ha -- the wrong ronaldo!

don't be so literal, i judge l'avventura to be the better film, but admit it, it's hard to digest, not easy to like, and it is hard to watch simply because each take lasts for fucking ever. if you let it seep in however you can enjoy it-- it's not like "oh the thrills!" though, it's a quiet deliciousness that makes a lot of demands on the viewer.

regarding blow-up, it's more commercial, more easily entered, but you peel off layers and get to the real meat, and to me it's a great movie. part of it is a sort of period piece, sure, like watching, i don't know, the lion in winter, or spartacus? you know, some historical shit, "life before AiDS". then there's teh whole aspect of the emptiness of the photographer's life which is, you know, surface "awesome" and cool for its day, but pretty horrid and boring and pointless, and more absurd 50 years later. and then there's the whole murder mystery which unlike, say, rear window, isn't a matter of finding the truth from signs, but the signs, being mediated and altered, call into question the whole reality of what is what, and that antonioni took from cortazar, nd las babas del diablo is a great short story.

whoa, barca playing w/ weird orange shirts. gtg.

Someone who hasn't been mentioned yet is Monica Vitti, the only actor for me who seemed to get Antonioni instinctively. That's not so important for some directors but I think he's one who did require very specific things from very specific kinds of actors and Vanessa Redgrave and David Hemmings have both admitted to admiring Antonioni but not really understanding what he wanted from them, which I think is a big problem throughout Blow Up, with too many scenes coming over a bit too much like amateur dramatics. Although it's not just the absence of Vitti; he worked ok with Jack Nicholson, but that may be because Nicholson didn't even try to understand him.

And those shirts, I know, shocking.

The Future (2011)- 5/10
Kung Fu: The Punch of Death (1973)- 7/10
Paganini Horror (1989)- 5/10

The Dark Knight Rises is "back by popular demand" at some theaters in my area, so of course I said "fuck you, college football" and blew off everything to go see it again, this time in IMAX.

It was tremendous, and I now believe it to be equal in greatness to Dark Knight. Though they are great in different ways, and TDK will be remembered as the soul of the trilogy, Rises is no fucking throwaway third act. All the philosophical quandaries that made the Dark Knight so unforgettable are still there, only they are broadened to a macro-scope.

I wanted to see it again, especially since I finally got the chance to watch Spider-man and Avengers. I wanted to reevaluate it in comparison to the other "summer of superhero" films. Though those movies were both great In their own way, it's Nolan is simply not making a comparable product. He has made a series of films that stand alone, irrespective of genre, and I believe them to be truly brilliant films in general.

They're just not super hero movies. They're movies about morality, identity, and altruism... Issues that are inherently human, and decidedly "non-super."

I couldn't be prouder of these movies. Avengers was a great ride, and Amazing Spider-Man started a much needed correction of past mistakes ( I wish that franchise well; it feels like it could have a lot of potential and I think it did a lot of things right) but TDK trilogy is just a completely different beast.

Excuse me for repeating myself, as I am sure I've said most of this before, but god damn: what an achievement. I really hope the reboot doesn't happen. DC needs to leave this character alone (until Bale is old enough for a "...returns" ) because Batman has been done to perfection. Nobody can or will ever do it better.

Done now.

I was disappointed about nolan's batman films only in that his Batman never deduced anything as a detective would, which I always found to be crucial to my love of Batman all these decades.

Well, I disagree, but you make a good point. I also thought Bane's death was anticlimactic. However, I think Nolan showed us an immensely flawed Batman. human Batman, with hubris and cockiness and a number of other fundamentally human traits. I think there were some unrealistic aspects as well, but not enough of then to make me think less of the film.

While watching it the second time, I realized how truly terrifying Bane was. The character was, for the most part, perfectly executed. His delivery was impeccable and he was deeply unnerving. I think a lot of people were disappointed in the film because Batman is absent for pretty much the entire film, but Bruce Wayne was there.. He wasn't very badass as Batman in this film and he didn't do a hell of a lot, but that's actually refreshing for a "superhero" movie.

I don't know... Maybe I'm biased. But when I say it was done to perfection I don't necessarily mean that every moment was perfect. I just mean the Batman story has been put to film in such an incredible way that I think DC needs to just let it be, and enjoy the fact that these movies have made Batman the most popular comic character in the world. They have made the ONLY comic book adaptation series that doesn't suck (seriously, show me another trilogy or series that has been pulled off so consistently and so well) and that the films are actually being viewed as great cinematic achievements. What more could they ask for? They have made history, and won oscars, and legitimately put the character to film in a way that has never been done before.

Why spoil it by trying to do it again? It would be like "rebooting" Lord of the Rings. Fuck it! Focus on building on their other characters! Leave the goddamn Batman alone and let this series define him.

they looked like they were sponsored by some kind of citrus-based beverage for children--




anyway monica vitti of course, well, that creature is an alien from a place far above ourselves. i like her more, i think, in l'eclisse. but fuck yeah.

ANYWAY, i was looking at the criterion website and reading an essay by gene youngblood (no longer young btw, i've met him in person) and i found this HILARIOUS shitty-ass trailer for l'avventura. watch it:

http://www.criterion.com/films/209-l-avventura

see how they present it as some sort of "erotic thiller", almost some kind of soft porn, like emmanuelle, or something by just jaeckin?

that's the kind of approach people have towards blow-up, like it's about the titillation oh-so-magnificent london of the 60s-- but no!

that essay by youngblood quotes a phrase by antonioni i had heard/read before; "eros is sick" (i think i heard in on the commentary of l'eclisse). the same theme runs through l'avventura, l'eclisse, and of course blow-up-- all the fucking and drug parties and running around are not really meant to be "cool", but pathetic, meaningless, boring.

I've watched Taxi Driver to check that I wouldn't fall asleep halfway through the film once again but I did. Maybe it was because I've watched too many episodes of Louie (God, I so LOVE this tv show! Check out the episode with D. Lynch on it) until the early hours of Sunday, or it's just that this movie puts me to sleep no matter what. I'll give it another go.

I love Louie, too, although I can't say I've ever had a problem staying awake through Taxi Driver.

Anyway, rewatched



Avatar

I'm not one to be down on a Cameron movie just because (even though I generally can't stand his stuff) but this is almost reassuringly rubbish.

Shutter Island.

I most more impressed with the good things, even more laughing at the more nonsensical aspects. Oh yeah, and I wish they would have ended it more openly rather then giving away that he was just crazy, if the Dr/Chuck hadn't come into the scene, we could have still suspected it was some kind of NAZI conspiracy, but alas, poor directing which killed the potential for a thrilling ending..

I've not seen what she looks like now but in her day she was almost unfathomably beautiful.



Anyway, just watched



Moneyball

I imagine o lot of potential viewers for this were put off by the fact it's about baseball. It's a real gem, though. Brad Pitt is great in it and well deserved his oscar nomination, although (predictably) Phillip Seymour Hoffman does steal the show a bit. Highly recommended.

louie is the best. i can't remember david lynch on it, probably because hulu stopped showing the new episodes and i have to wait until they are up on netflix. or maybe i actually saw it but just forgot. my memory is full of holes like that, especially concerning tv shows, because i watch so many. but louie, anyway, rules.

ANYWAY, i am no big fan of taxi driver either. i mean yes, beautifully shot and all, but i don't think i like stories by paul schraeder. i mean it's always this dismal darkness and desperation of a lonely maladapted guy in a big city having a psychotic breakdown (taxi driver) or having his brains beaten to a pulp (raging bull). i'm sorry if i mischaracterize the guy with such broad generalization but if i wanted to watch yet-another psychotic breakdown all i'd have to do is look inside my own head. just saying.

i'm actually put off by the fact that brad pitt is in it, but i'm encouraged by the fact that aaron sorkin had a hand in that screenplay.

sorkin is one of those guys that turns anything he touches into gold, like a more grownup-minded joss whedon (one likes politics and technology and smart professionals, the other likes comics and superheroes). another used to be charlie kauffman, but i think he might have gone off the deep end because i haven't seen him make anything since synecdoche new york. get well, charlie!

watched POOTIE TANG again a couple of nights ago, in a green haze.

as a silly, stupid, fun waste of time, 10/10

as a movie? 4/10


I also saw a movie called Cellmates
it was corny,yet true to itself. 6/10

Nah that goes to 2001 or The Shining for me. Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut just ruins it for me. That scene where Cruise and Kidman smoke pot is just cringe worthy.

I don't know anything about the screenwriter but the screenplay is very good. Brad Pitt is superb. I think he's been very good for a while now and has never been exactly bad. I honestly don't understand the negativity a lot of people feel towards him. Perhaps he's just too good looking for his own good. Either way, give it a go. I'd be seriously surprised if you don't end up liking it.

sorkin is a playwright and screenwriter who i think first got famous with "a few good men". then he went on to write a little tv show called "sports night" that was actually pretty good, considering, and from then he wrote what's probably the best show in the history of network tv (network, not cable)-- "the west wing." he was there for 3+ seasons and then was caught with a rock of crack at some airport and the show kept running for 3 or 4 more seasons but it was shit compared to the beginning.

went into recovery, not sure for how long, wrote "charlie wilson's war" which was pretty good in spite of having tom hanks in it, and more recently wrote the screenplay for "the social network," which you've prolly heard about.

his trademarks-- an obsession with politics, an obsession with smart overachieving characters, snappy clever dialogue (much like whedon but on more grownup subjects such as legal doctrines or nuclear warfare strategy), a strange love of gilbert & sullivan, highly functional drunks (tv ratings experts, white house chiefs of staff, u.s.senators), health-challenged elders (u.s. president w/ multiple sclerosis, t.v. station general manager recovering from a stroke), a weird love of gilbert+ sullivan, and various other "tics" that make him recognizable once you've watched enough of his stuff.

why we hate the prettyboy: exactly for the reason you mention. i remember i first liked his work in "12 monkeys" actually. but it's always grating, like you need to get his ridiculous celebrity out of the way in order to get to his acting. also probably jealousy that he gets to bang angelina raw, ha ha haaaa.

Sorkin's Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip turned to shit before its 20-something episode run.

His new one, Newsroom couldn't make it to ten episodes before it started to suck. I mean, there was a drop in quality after the first episode, and by the fourth the whole thing had crashed to crap.

He's very fast paced, so you don't notice the huge plot holes and the shameless sentimentality of his stuff right off the bat. But once you go over what just happened in your mind, it's like, "What the fuck?"

His dialogue is superbly entertaining. It's the reason I don't dismiss him entirely as an over-rated hack. I love a good one-liner, and if that's his one trick, he does it great. I could listen to that stuff all day. (And don't give me nonsense about the dialogue not being realistic. That's to life's discredit, not Sorkin's.)

Now, if he could match Mamet's natural story-telling ability, he might be on to something.